← 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

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Ambala vs. ITO, Ward-3, Ambala

ITA 275/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Sh. Amrik Singh, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panchkula

ITA 219/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Sh. Pargat Singh, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward -1, Kaithal

ITA 180/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Sh. Gurinder Singh Grewal L/H of Parneet Kaur Grewal, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh

ITA 129/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

M/S Yograj Chaudhary, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 116/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Sh. Ramesh Chand, Jagadhri vs. ITO, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 731/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Sh. Suresh Pal, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 5, Yamuna Nagar

ITA 668/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Sh. Kulbir Singh S/O Sh. Jagir Singh, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panchkula

ITA 641/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Saroj Chaudhary Bala, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panchkula

ITA 635/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Smt. Shankri Devi, Panchkula vs. ACIT, Panckula Circle, Panchkula

ITA 596/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Harmala, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Nangal

ITA 432/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Amrinder Singh Khubber, Ambala vs. ITO, W-5, Ambala

ITA 1044/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Amrinder Singh Khubber, Ambala vs. ITO, W-5, Ambala

ITA 1043/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

taxable, added the same to the returned income, determined assessed income at Rs.38,16,700/-, and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

Tarun Jain, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(4) Fbd, Faridabad

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

ITA 4193/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmantarun Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), House No.641, Sector 7B, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (Pan : Agepj5824D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Order : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal With A Delay Of 62 Days From The Date Of Appellate Order. He Submitted That On January 7, 2025, A Robbery Took Place At The Assessee’S Shop For Which An Fir Was Registered In Sector 8, Faridabad, A Copy Of The Same Is Placed On Record & This Unfortunate Incident Caused

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

addition of Rs.96,000/- on Rs.16 lakhs for 6 months @ 12%. 3 6. Further, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting was initiated on the above additions. Notice u/s 274 read with Section 270A dated 25.12.2019 was issued ... made in his income and has not explained why penalty should not be levied. 8. Assessing Officer held that the assessee has under-reported his income leading to misreporting of income and is liable for penalty within the meaning of section 270A (1) r.w.s. 270A(9) of the Act. Accordingly

Tejas Shivaji Adsul, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

understanding relevant portion of provisions made in section 270A of the Act is reproduced below:- "(2) A person shall be 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 ... section 270A are reproduced as under: "270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. (2) A person shall be 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

Jetsynthesys Private Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 346/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jetsynthesys Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Limited, 101-104, 1St Floor, Metro House, Mangaldas Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaicm1358A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of The Act It Be Held That The Penalty Imposed U/S 270A

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)

ESIC. Vide order dated 13.02.2024 Assessing Officer also imposed penalty of Rs.2,74,100/- u/s 270A(9) of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of miss-reporting thereof. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the quantum order as well ... question of law therefore question of imposition of penalty does not arise. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the assessee neither under-reported the income nor misreported the income. Ld. AR also submitted that at the time of preparation of books of accounts the issue of taxability of belated

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1810/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74,88,876/- arising from the sale ... above, the AO, vide order dated 21.09.2023, levied penalty of Rs.26,61,172/- for the A.Y.2017-18 u/s.270A(9)(e) of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 31. Aggrieved of the above penalty order, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who vide order dated

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1809/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74,88,876/- arising from the sale ... above, the AO, vide order dated 21.09.2023, levied penalty of Rs.26,61,172/- for the A.Y.2017-18 u/s.270A(9)(e) of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 31. Aggrieved of the above penalty order, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who vide order dated

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

ITA 1808/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 & 1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2021 -22 & 2017-18 To 2021-22 Chungath Varghese Sunny, 275-276, Cross Cut Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Ageps-1475-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Dcit, Central Circle -3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Ten Appeals Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Different Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Id.Cit(A)”] Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3(3), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ao”], U/S.153C R.W.S 143(3)/143(3)/270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] For The Assessment Years (“Ay/Ays”) 2017-18 To 2021-22. These Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1801 To 1805/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Assessment Orders Passed U/S.153C R.W.S.143(3)/143(3) Of The Act, Whereas The Appeals Bearing Ita Nos.1806 To 1810/Chny/2025 Pertain To The Penalty Orders Passed U/S.270A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In All The Five Assessment Years Under Consideration Are Identical In Nature & The Arguments Advanced By Both The Parties Are Common, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. We Shall First Address The Quantum Assessments.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74,88,876/- arising from the sale ... above, the AO, vide order dated 21.09.2023, levied penalty of Rs.26,61,172/- for the A.Y.2017-18 u/s.270A(9)(e) of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 31. Aggrieved of the above penalty order, assessee preferred appeal before the Id.CIT(A) who vide order dated

Chungath Varghese Sunny, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1807/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 270A

above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 28.03.2023, proposing levy of penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The AO observed that the assessee had not recorded gross profit of Rs.74,88,876/- arising from the sale ... above, the AO, vide order dated 21.09.2023, levied penalty of Rs.26,61,172/- for the A.Y.2017-18 u/s.270A(9)(e) of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 31. Aggrieved of the above penalty order, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who vide order dated