← All Phrases

“mis-reporting of income”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A132 judgments

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

Leading authorities on mis-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.

Judgments citing mis-reporting of income

Nirjeet Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5151/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Nirjeet Singh Vs Ito Ward 52(1) 117, Palika Bazar New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablps0458C

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 274

DELHI 6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material available on record. We note that the cases of mis-reporting of income as enumerated in section 270A(9) of the Act are as under: “270A(9) The cases of misreporting of income referred

Sri Krisha Traders, Sivagangai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2223/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2223/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. N. Vijay Kumar, C.A *+For Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

returned Sri Krishna Traders :- 4 -: income. Penalty u/s 270A are initiated for under reporting of Income which was in consequence of mis-reporting of income.” 3. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. It is relevant to note here that the assessee has raised

Ajay Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Noida Gbn, Noida

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

ITA 2253/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 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 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 156Section 249Section 270ASection 270MSection 276C

under bona-fide belief that the VRS income was exempted. 7.2 It is seen that penalty u/s 270A was initiated for mis-reporting of income. Provisions of section 270AA are applicable only when penalty was not initiated for misreporting of income. Hence, the appellant is not eligible for immunity ... failed to offer any explanation before the AO. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs.12,61,420/- and initiated penalty u/s 270A for mis-reporting of income. The addition was accepted by the appellant. The 7 action of the appellant in showing lesser income in the revised return and claiming

Salimahmed Umarganibhai Vahora, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1595/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalsalimahmed Umarganibhai The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vahora, Ward-1(3)(1), Vahorawad Bazar, Vadodara. Nr. Nagar Palika, Padra, Vadodara-391440. [Pan :Ajbpv8394 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M K Patel, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ravindra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under reporting and/or mis-reporting of income. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A

Krunal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Chintan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 253Section 270A(9)Section 5

referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 24.04.2024 confirming the levy of penalty for mis-reporting of income as a consequence of under reporting of income in terms of provisions of Section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that penalty under the said Subsection is levied for specific cases of mis-reporting of income, which are ITA No.1285/Ahd/2025 [Krunal Sanghvi vs. ITO] A.Y. 2018-19 - 5 – specified in the said subsection and the assessee’s case does

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)

income and deposited tax arisen on the transfer of the said immovable property. Therefore the assessee had under reported income in consequence of mis-reporting of income in the ambit of section 270A(9) of the Act for the AY 2018-19. 3.7.4. In view of the above facts ... circumstances, I am satisfied that the assessee committed default of under reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income without reasonable cause. I am also satisfied that, this is fit case for levy of penalty u/s 2 of the Act. The penalty is leviable in respect of total

Mahesh Tukaram Matkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2350/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

Rs.8,47,620/-. Since the assessee has mis-reported income to the tune of Rs.3,20,596/- being 270A of the Act for mis-reporting of income. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act. The assessee was also show caused

Mahesh Tukaram Matkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2342/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

Rs.8,47,620/-. Since the assessee has mis-reported income to the tune of Rs.3,20,596/- being 270A of the Act for mis-reporting of income. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act. The assessee was also show caused

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Ld. ITO, Ward 35(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3447/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 270A

perusal of above statutory prescription clearly eludes that sub-section-9 of section 270A postulates instances, (a) to (f) where mis-reporting of income shall be deemed for levy of any penalty. The natural corollary of law would be that when a notice invoking provisions of sub-section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

case of the appellant. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income is not legally tenable as per various judicial decision(s) discussed as supra. 6.5.11 In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents relied ... bring on record of any findings that the appellant has under-reported income in 1-43 -2 ITA Nos.1650 to 1655/Chny/2025 consequence of mis-reporting of income, when the return of income was accepted in toto. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon the levy of penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1654/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

case of the appellant. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income is not legally tenable as per various judicial decision(s) discussed as supra. 6.5.11 In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents relied ... bring on record of any findings that the appellant has under-reported income in 1-43 -2 ITA Nos.1650 to 1655/Chny/2025 consequence of mis-reporting of income, when the return of income was accepted in toto. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon the levy of penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

case of the appellant. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income is not legally tenable as per various judicial decision(s) discussed as supra. 6.5.11 In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents relied ... bring on record of any findings that the appellant has under-reported income in 1-43 -2 ITA Nos.1650 to 1655/Chny/2025 consequence of mis-reporting of income, when the return of income was accepted in toto. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon the levy of penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1652/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

case of the appellant. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income is not legally tenable as per various judicial decision(s) discussed as supra. 6.5.11 In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents relied ... bring on record of any findings that the appellant has under-reported income in 1-43 -2 ITA Nos.1650 to 1655/Chny/2025 consequence of mis-reporting of income, when the return of income was accepted in toto. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon the levy of penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1651/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

case of the appellant. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income is not legally tenable as per various judicial decision(s) discussed as supra. 6.5.11 In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents relied ... bring on record of any findings that the appellant has under-reported income in 1-43 -2 ITA Nos.1650 to 1655/Chny/2025 consequence of mis-reporting of income, when the return of income was accepted in toto. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon the levy of penalty

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Chennai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1650/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

case of the appellant. Therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income is not legally tenable as per various judicial decision(s) discussed as supra. 6.5.11 In view of the above discussion and judicial precedents relied ... bring on record of any findings that the appellant has under-reported income in 1-43 -2 ITA Nos.1650 to 1655/Chny/2025 consequence of mis-reporting of income, when the return of income was accepted in toto. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Appellant upon the levy of penalty

ITO(E) Ward-2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Shree Asandas B Murjani Education Trust, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1224/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 1223 & 1224/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

which was challenged before us in ITA No. 1223/Ahd/2025 and since the registration u/s. 12AA has been granted, there is no mis-reporting of income. Thus, ITA No. 1224/Ahd/2025 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced

ITO (Exemptions) Ward-2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Shree Asandas B Murjani Education Trust, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1223/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 1223 & 1224/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

which was challenged before us in ITA No. 1223/Ahd/2025 and since the registration u/s. 12AA has been granted, there is no mis-reporting of income. Thus, ITA No. 1224/Ahd/2025 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(1), Bandra Mumbai

ITA 3166/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(f)Section 69C

penalty under section 270A of the Act was imposable on estimated addition because the factum of either under reporting of income or mis-reporting of income, is not proved. Thus, no penalty would be imposable in case of trading addition on estimate basis. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed ... penalty under section 270A of the Act was imposable on estimated addition because the factum of either under reporting of income or mis-reporting of income, is not proved. Thus, no penalty would be imposable in case of trading addition on estimate basis. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(1), Bandra East, Mumbai

ITA 3165/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(f)Section 69C

penalty under section 270A of the Act was imposable on estimated addition because the factum of either under reporting of income or mis-reporting of income, is not proved. Thus, no penalty would be imposable in case of trading addition on estimate basis. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed ... penalty under section 270A of the Act was imposable on estimated addition because the factum of either under reporting of income or mis-reporting of income, is not proved. Thus, no penalty would be imposable in case of trading addition on estimate basis. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

first appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Section 270A of the Act contemplates penalty for under reporting and mis-reporting of income whereas Section 270AA of the Act contemplates immunity from the imposition of penalty etc. and for which two conditions must be fulfilled by virtue of Section