← All Phrases

“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
38
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
29
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
14
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
13
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
11
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
10
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

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

ITA 1402/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

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

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

ITA 1401/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

Satyam Print House, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2898/MUM/2023[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

made an addition of INR 35,00,000/- to the returned income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessee was filed reply 4. stating that the demand raised by the Assessee has already been paid ... liability within the period of 30 days. Further, we note that in the present case, the penalty has been 11. levied for under-reporting of income under Section 270A(7) of the Act. Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act excludes from the ambit of under-reported income, the amount

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

appeal No 3: 7.3.1 The appellant has contested this appeal on technical ground that in the penalty notice sent both limbs of 'Under-reporting of Income* and 'Underreporting of Income as a consequence of misreporting of Income' were retained. Facts leading to penalty have been carefully considered ... Taxmann.com 3 7.3.12 It is clear from.= penalty order that penalty of Rs.10,92,92,064/- has been levied on charge of "under-reporting of Income as a consequence of Misreporting of Income". The appellant company filed its objections to penalty vide letter dated 07-0§-2021 before the Assessing

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

appeal No 3: 7.3.1 The appellant has contested this appeal on technical ground that in the penalty notice sent both limbs of 'Under-reporting of Income* and 'Underreporting of Income as a consequence of misreporting of Income' were retained. Facts leading to penalty have been carefully considered ... Taxmann.com 3 7.3.12 It is clear from.= penalty order that penalty of Rs.10,92,92,064/- has been levied on charge of "under-reporting of Income as a consequence of Misreporting of Income". The appellant company filed its objections to penalty vide letter dated 07-0§-2021 before the Assessing

Fayz E Husayni Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc) Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 274

facts of the case, I am not inclined to agree with the appellant's claim. The present case is clear cut case of under-reporting of income. It is a fact that only when enquiry was initiated during the course of scrutiny proceedings, the appellant came forward and accepted

Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Department (NFAC), Delhi

ITA 1194/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Assessment Unit, Income Jalgaon, V Tax Department(Nfac) Gat No.148, Yashwant Nagar, S Ramanand Nagar, Maharashtra – 425001. Pan: Aaatv6624R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishnan – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Passed On 20.09.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him By The Assessee & In Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A]

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

assessee. After calculation, total disallowance comes to Rs.53,56,317/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the I.T.Act has been initiated separately for under-reporting of income.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. Aggrieved by the order

The DCIT Circle 5(1), Bhopal vs. M/S L N Malviya Infra Projects P Ltd, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 189/IND/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanidcit, Circle 5(1) M/S. L.N. Malviya Infra Projects Bhopal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.29, F/F Sector, Dwarka Vs. New Delhi

Section 234ASection 3(3)Section 37(1)

added back to the total income of the assessee. The penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the Act is also initiated for the under-reporting of income.” 13. It is manifest from the impugned order of the AO that a general remark has been made by the AO about the personal

Tableau Internation Unlimited Copmany the Oval Shelbourne Road Ovel Ballsbridge Dublin, Ireland D04E7K5, Ireland vs. DCIT, Circle3(1)(1) Internatioanal Taxation, Delhi

Appeal stands allowed in terms as indicated above

ITA 1875/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234DSection 244A

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u / s 270A of the Act on account of under-reporting of income due to misreporting thereof. 2.1 The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal, which are as under: “1. Additional Grounds of appeal

Bito-Lagertechnik Bittmann Gmbh, Garmany vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2440/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 48Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act, citing a case of ‘under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting’, ignoring the fact that the entire income has been duly reported while furnishing the return of income; there

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

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

Greenwoods Govt. Officers Welfare Society, Noida vs. DCIT Circle 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

under section 143(3)/144B of the Act. The Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. 4. In response to show cause notice, the assessee vide letter dated 16.02.2022 stated that it is a regular tax payer and was unaware that ... appreciate and reconsider the matter so as to find out as to whether addition made in the quantum proceedings actually represents under-reporting of income on the part of the assessee and whether it is a fit case to impose the penalty. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Yoonus Kadavath Peedikayil, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 913/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasyoonus Kadavath Peedikayil The Income Tax Officer M/S. Modern Enterprises Ward – 1 & Tps Kakkad Road Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kannur 670005 Kannothumchal [Pan:Ccwpk6415P] Chovva P.O., Kannur 670006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

open for him – on facts, to contend that the notice did not specify the ‘default’, which essentially is the under-reporting of income w.r.t. to the amount that the law deems as his income in case of non-audit of books of account in a given set of facts

Shri Mohd Manzoor, Rajouri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2 (3), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 166/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

filed and the business income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, penalty proceedings u/s 270A(2)(b) for under-reporting of income are being initiated separately. 7.8Thatthe Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has made addition to the tune ... filed and the business income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, penalty proceedings u/s 270A(2)(b) for under-reporting of income are being initiated separately.” 7. We heard the rival submission and consider the documents available in the record. The entire issue

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 235/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 10Section 14ASection 250Section 270A

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned NFAC be directed not to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. 3. The Appellant Bank reserves the right to add, alter, amend and delete any of the ground(s) before or during the course

Madhurittu Puri, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3063/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234DSection 270A(2)

demand of Rs.67,12,119 as created thereon is very excessive. 8. That the penalty under section 270A(2) as initiated for alleged under-reporting of income is not applicable on the facts and under the law in Appellant’s case.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 relate to addition

Blpl Singapore Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT International Tax Circle 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleblpl Singapore Pte Ltd, Dcit(Intl Tax), 2Nd Floor, Geetmal Circle-1(2)(2), बनाम/ Building, Himalayas, Room.No1811, Vs. Next To Shah Industrial Air India Building, Estate, Govandi East, Narimanpoint, Mumbai-400088. Mumbai-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb4510C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Passed Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 44BSection 90

Penalty of a sum of Rs. 26,39,611/-being ITA.No.605/Mum/2023. 50% of the tax of Rs. 52.79,223/- payable towards under-reporting of income. Your Appellants respectfully submit that the order passed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be ordered to be deleted. 2. Your

Saltwater Studio LLP, Mum vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम / Saltwater Studio Llp Nfac, Delhi 103, Corporate Corner, F Block, Northe Block, Vs. Sunder Nagar, Near Dalmia New Delhi-110001 College, Malad (West) Mumbai-400 064 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ackfs1653D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil K. Das(Sr. AR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270A

Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Marriott International Design & Construction Services Inc., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer is thus dismissed

ITA 2977/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (It) – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Marriott International Design Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor & Construction Services Inc., Air India Building, Nariman Point C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 303A, 304, Fulcrum B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 01/Mum/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 2977/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2018-19)] M/S. Marriott International Design V. Dcit (It) – 3(2)(1) & Construction Services Inc., Room No. 1632, 16Th Floor C/O. Marriot Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., Air India Building 303A, 304, Fulcrum Nariman Point B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai, Sahar Road Andheri (E) - 400099 Pan: Aagcm5401Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Paras Savla Department Represented By : Shri Kunal Haver

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

services to be taxed at 10% as per India-USA DTAA. Penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 270 A of I.T. Act, 1961 separately for under-reporting of income.” 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying on order

Parsben Jivanbhai Vadhiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 47/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Parasben Jivanbhai Vadhiya Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Village Budhaleshwar, Tal. Income-Tax, Circle-(3), Vs Mahuva, Surat-394250 Surat Pan No: Apvpv 0109 F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 25.01.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 06.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,54,500/- U/S 270A Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Parasben J. Vadhiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Although Assessee Sought Adjournment Upto 12/01/2023. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274Section 43B

holding that Assessing Officer has applied due diligence while passing the assessment order and in this case, penalty proceedings was initiated for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting because there was a misrepresentation of fact while filing return for assessment year 2017-18. Thus, the exception provided ... alternative submission, Ld. AR for the assessee submits while issuing show cause notice, the Assessing Officer issued notice for want i.e. under-reporting of income and penalty order under section 270A of the Act was passed on other limb i.e., under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Thus, such