“under-reporting of income”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A402 judgments

The decision most relied on for under-reporting of income is CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (275 ITR 113), cited in 38 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on under-reporting of income

CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal

275 ITR 113 · 2005 · High Court

citing judgments

The omission by an Income Tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings during the assessment, when there is an observation of under-reporting or mis-reporting of income, renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, granting the Commissioner jurisdiction to revise such an order under Section 263.

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.

443 ITR 186 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Company Limited 432 ITR 84 (Del); 4. Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT

145 Taxmann.com 665 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Immunity from penalty under Section 270AA may be granted if the assessment order is silent on how the ingredients of Section 270A(9) are satisfied, and the penalty notice fails to specify whether the penalty is for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income.

GR Infraprojects Ltd. v. ACIT

158 Taxmann.com 80 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 270A cannot be sustained without the Assessing Officer specifying the exact charge against the assessee, including which part of section 270A(9) is attracted. Immunity under section 270AA may be granted if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the relevant sub-clause of section 270A(9) or mechanically passes an order without considering the assessee's replies.

DCIT v. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers (P.) Ltd.

171 Taxmann.com 133 · 2025 · Reported

citing judgments

Penalty under section 270A is not leviable in the absence of specifying the sub-clause of section 270A(9) under which the penalty is initiated.

Judgments citing under-reporting of income

Suresh Trambak Dusane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1431/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1429 To 1431/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

more than the income shown in the original return(s) of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act. This is considered to be under-reporting of income under clause (b) sub-section (3) of Section 270A. Therefore, it is a clear case of misreporting of income and the authorities

Suresh Trambak Dusane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1430/PUN/2023[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1429 To 1431/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Suresh Trambak Dusane, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1429/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1429 To 1431/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri RY. Balawade

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Parulben Vijaykumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

occasion to file return of income. Second issue consideration before us is if penalty is leviable, then is the present case one of under-reporting of income, thereby attracting tax @ 50% on such underreported income or is it a case of misreporting of income, thereby attracting penalty ... amount of tax payable on such misreported income under Section 271A(8) of the Act. 11. Section 270A provides for penalty for “under-reporting of income” [penalty at fifty per cent, of tax payable on such under-reported income, under sub Section (7)] and “misreporting of income” [under sub Section

Ibm Corporation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than IBM Canada) where the matter was adjudicated basis incorrect facts

Ibm Corporation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Ibm United Kingdom Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Ibm Israel Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 491/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271(1)(c)

Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 918/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sharad Bhaskarrao The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, V Nashik. T No.1, Vanai Apartment, S Gangapur Road, Behind Kulswamini Apartment, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri Sourabho Nayak – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 02.05.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A]

Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income. (2) A person shall ... considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Private Limited, Andheri West vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Nariman Point

ITA 3615/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 44A

Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to 5 tax, if any, on the under-reported income ... drawing of such satisfaction by the Assessing Officer. Section 270A(1) of the Act provides that Assessing Officer ‘may’ direct that a person under-reporting his income shall be liable to pay penalty. Thus, giving discretion to the Assessing Officer to issue directions for initiating penalty proceedings. Further, under Section

Allied Photographics India Limited, Churchgate vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

ITA 3540/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 32

view of smallness of the amount involved. 3.1. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting and a show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act was issued on 23/12/2019 ... Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income. xx xx (7) The penalty

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1882/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Dcit, C/O-Anil Jain Dd & Co., 611, Surya Central Circle-14, Kiran Building, 19 K.G.Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapg2240G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Rahul Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)

while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act, issued a notice dated 27.12.2019, calling upon the assessee to explain about under-reporting of income as to why the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act, could not be imposed for under- reporting his income. Thereafter, the AO considering ... assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written synopsis. He contended that although notice for imposing the penalty was issued for under-reporting the income but the penalty levied is imposed for misreporting the income. It is the case of the assessee that the AO without referring

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

were initiated and accordingly Show cause Notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 270A of the I.T. Act was issued on 26.11.2029 for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Further show cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 270A was issued on 26.05.2021 fixing the hearing date on 31.05.2021. In reply to show ... absence of any valid explanation, the assessee is unable to challenge the addition made in the assessment order and has thus, accepted its under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Thus, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has misreported its income for Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

M/S Shree Ganesh Jewellers Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle V(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.J. Shalley, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

concealment of Income. In this case penalty has been initiated u/s 270A of the IT Act for under-reporting of income which is different to the provision of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Hence, the contention of the assessee has been not found acceptable ... method employed is such that income cannot properly be deduced therefrom, the same cannot be a basis for levying the charge of under-reporting of income. The emphasis is therefore clearly on the correct and complete accounts so furnished by the assessee and only in a situation where there

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]

Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

account of delayed reporting by the deductor/payer bank/Financial Institution. In view thereof in our considered view same cannot tantamount to under-reporting of income, consequently de-horses from attracting any penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 5. Insofar as the penalty imposed against disallowance of enhanced claim of gratuity exemption

Yogesh Kotiyal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 244ASection 270ASection 5(2)(a)Section 6(1)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

facts and circumstances of the case and in law erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for alleged under-reporting of income.” 3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. During Assessment year 2020-21, the Assessee

Mohd Sarwar, Raghavendra Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 238/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Sarwar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2-8-306/12, Raghavendra Ward – 2, Nagar, Waddepalle, Karimnagar. Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana - 506370. Pan : Aoups2364F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Vamseedhar, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri A. Vamseedhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 156Section 156(1)Section 250Section 270A

specified penalty in the show-cause notice dt.2nd January, 2021 and dt. 15th march, 2021 that penalty is imposed for under-reporting of income and at the time of passing the impugned penalty order u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Id. A.O stated as mis-reported his income ... accepted by the assessee in the revised statement before Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Assessing Officer has mentioned that the assessee had under-reported the income. The Assessing Officer has also issued a notice u/s 270A of the Act, (Page 40 of the paper book in Volume 4) is to the following

Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

ITA 1447/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80C

penalty(ies) in assessee’s case going by sec.270A(8) on one hand; whereas they nowhere specify the corresponding limb(s) of “under-reporting of income in consequence of any mis-reporting” thereof; as prescribed sub- sec.(9) containing (a) to (f) clauses. Faced with this situation, I adopt stricter