“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

Faruk Rafik Mujawar, Ichalkaranji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1344/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194HSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 44A

Assessing Officer and no addition (except Rs.1640/-) was made in the income disclosed in the audit report which proves that there is no under-reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting. Apart from above, Ld. AR also submitted that in the assessment order, penalty order and even

Tata Steel Limited (Successor of Angul Energy Limited), Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4171/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 80Section 92BSection 92CSection 93C

That the Ld. AO has erred by stating in the assessment order that penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for under-reporting of income needs to be imposed.” 3. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal in terms of Rule 11 of the Income

Income Tax Officer Ward 411 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sharanam Reality Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

Shri Rajkumar Varadmal Budhani, where the deemed sale consideration was Rs.1,11,16,200/- against the reported Rs.75,00,000/-, clearly establishing under-reporting of income. (c) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by not calling for or considering the assessee's explanations regarding discrepancies

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sharanam Reality Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1838/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

Podar Literacy and Education Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

levy of penalty and the confirmation thereof on merits, contending that the facts of the case do not give rise to any “under-reporting of income” within the meaning of section 270A of the Act. 2. The assessee before us is a public charitable trust, registered under section 12AA ... cost had already been treated as application of income amounted to an impermissible deduction, leading to overstatement of application of income and, consequently, under-reporting of income. On this reasoning, the learned CIT(A) concluded that the case squarely fell within section 270A(2)(a) of the Act and, therefore

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 35

demand noticed and challan accordingly. Issue Penalty notice under section 274 r.w.s.270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, separately for mis- reporting and under-reporting of income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee now is in appeal ITA No.632/PUN/2022 before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:- “Based

Cummins India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 632/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 13Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “C” BENCHES : : PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5602/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

Since the above adjustments, attracts penal provisions, penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for under-reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income in this matter.” 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before Learned CIT(A). Vide Order, dated

Anukool Gas Service, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3402/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 269SSection 271ASection 68

Rs.54,06,202/- is added to the total income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) for under-reporting of income are initiated separately. 9. Subject to the above remarks, total income of the assessee is computed as under: Income as per return

Mrinalini Jayant Puranik, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274

time. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer accepted the returned income. However, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act was issued and served on the assessee in response to which ... various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.10,96,347/- being the penalty @ 50% of tax payable for under-reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A of the Act. 3 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

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

which clause of section 270A(2) of the Act, appellant is alleged to have under-reported income. Infact, even the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has neither been specified and, nor determined in the notice. Also, in the alternative, section 270A(3) to section ... they do not speak about the specific charge in as much as under which clause of Section 270A(2) the assessee has under-reported its income neither the amount of alleged under-reporting of income has been determined in the notice. Conditions of Section 270A(3) to Section 270A

Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.545/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy.Cit Solutions Private Limited Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)

provides that where the assessee furnishes a bona fide explanation and discloses all material facts, the case shall not be treated as under-reporting of income. Since the assessee has disclosed every detail in the audited financials and acted under a bona fide legal understanding, no penalty can be imposed

The Mayani Urban Co Op Bank Ltd, Satara vs. DCIT, Circle Satara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1930/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1930/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Mayani Urban Co-Op. Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Bank Ltd., Tal: Khatav Dist.: Satara, Mayani, A/P Mayani- 415102. Pan : Aaaat7489H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harish Bist (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A(9) Of Rs.151140/- Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty U/S 270A Is Not Justified At 200%.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

dated 09.11.2021 penalty of Rs.1,51,140/- under clause (a) of sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act was imposed for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 4. Being aggrieved with the above penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

appreciate that the claim of Health and Education Cess was made by Appellant in good faith and hence does not tantamount to under-reporting of income as per the provisions of section 270A of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO has erred in passing the penalty order dated 30th March ... that may arise on disallowing health and education Cess. He, therefore, submitted that there is no basis for holding that the assessee has under-reported its income or done any act without good faith and due diligence and hence the provisions of section 270A of the Act do not apply

Ram Ratan Singh Pal, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 387/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 270ASection 44A

head ‘income from business/profession’, and further as to why penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act may not be initiated for under-reporting of income. In response, the assessee filed reply vide two letters dated 26.07.2022. Not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee in response

Florida Retirement System, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1866/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115ASection 144Section 144CSection 234Section 234BSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 12. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act alleging under-reporting of income by the Appellant. 3. The brief facts and the background of the case are that the assessee, Florida Retirement System, is an Artificial Juridical

Subbalakshmamma Pinnama, Thummalagunta, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1463/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 45

reopened, the income would have escaped assessment. Accordingly, the A.O. levied penalty of Rs.17,55,303/- under Section 270A of the Act, for under-reporting of income. 3. Aggrieved with such penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before ... Kumar, Sr. A.R. on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, it is a clear case of under-reporting of income, which is evident from the facts brought on record by the A.O. while levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Further

M/S R D Construction, Bhilai vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 640/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.640/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. R D Construction Shikshit Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Bhilai Marshalling Yard, Charoda, Bhilai-490 025 (C.G.) Pan: Aajfr3698E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(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

Kanichukulangara Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Kanichukulangara vs. Income Tax Officer, Alappuzha

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

ITA 594/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bijumon Antony, C.AFor Respondent: ShriLeena Lal, (SR.AR.)

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 144oSection 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)Section 270A(3)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 80

order is reproduced has below. “17. We note that Section 270A(1) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to levy penalty for under-reporting of income. Section 270A(2) of the Act provides that a person shall be considered to have under-reported income in case of instances specified

Raju Saha, Barasat, Twenty Four Parganas North vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 61, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2056/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 270ASection 80C

Rs.30,83,367/- to the total income of the assssee and penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act were initiated for under-reporting of income to the tune of Rs.30,83,367/-. 3 Raju Saha 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before