“penalty under section 270A”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A523 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 270A is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 270A

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.

213 CTR 268 · 2007 · Supreme Court

422

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.

171 Taxmann 156 · 2008 · High Court

384

citing judgments

The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.

CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.

327 ITR 510 · 2010 · High Court

330

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for legally unsustainable claims if the assessee provides a substantiated, bona fide explanation without concealing facts or giving incorrect information. However, penalty is attracted if a claim is baseless, legally incorrect, and the explanation lacks bona fides.

Judgments citing penalty under section 270A

ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar vs. Mahadev Shipbreakers Pvt Ltd., Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 724/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Mahadev Shipbreakers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Office No. 213/216, 2Nd Floor, Circle-1, Samved Complex, Opp. Jail Bhavnagar Road, Bhavnagar-364001 [Pan :Aaecm 8398 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Kushal Fofaria, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &

Section 115BSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270A(9)Section 69A

Rs.80.94 lakhs under Section 69A, taxing it under Section 115BBE and raising a demand of Rs.1.13 crores. The Assessing Officer also wrongly initiated penalty under Section 270A(9), incorrectly stating no ROI was filed and misreporting turnover as Rs.2.25 lakhs, though records clearly showed otherwise. 4. Aggrieved by the order

Virender Malik, Sagore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1810/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

against the order u/s.250 of the Act, dated 04.06.2025 emanating from penalty order u/s.270A of the Act, dated 02.03.2023. Ld.Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 270A(8) r.w.s 270A(9) of the Act, of Rs.5,77,644/-. Ld.AR has relied on the decision of ITAT Pune Bench

Virender Malik, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1809/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

Narayanbhai Shivabhai Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(6)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

time of hearing of the appeal.” 5. Shri Biren Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that the sole basis of levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act was the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which cannot be considered as any under-statement ... bona-fide explanation of the assessee and that all the material facts were duly disclosed in the return of income, the imposition of penalty under Section 270A of the Act was not proper. 6. Per contra, Ms. Urvashi Mandhan, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not bring

Star Wire (India) Vidyut Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

ITA 4259/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 80I

Appellant whereas, no such refund has been paid till date. 10.That on facts and circumstances of the case AO erred in initiating penalty under Section 270A of the Act. 11.Where there is any delay in filing of appeal(if yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay). 4. On hearing

Srini Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, MV PrasadFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

assessee disclosed all particulars of above disallowances in its ITR and no details mentioned in ITR were found to be incorrect or erroneous, penalty under section 270A was not leviable for under-reporting of income”. This legal proposition is further supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1312/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1309 To 1312/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan: Adopa4689A Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Papi Reddy Ankannagari (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-11 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 28.11.2024, 02.12.2024, 29.11.2024 & 28.11.2024 Respectively For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since These Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & For The Same A.Y. 2019-20, They

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

appropriate to set aside this appeal also to the file of the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO shall re-examine the issue of penalty under section 270A of the Act afresh, after adjudicating the quantum addition, and pass order in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1311/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1310/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

Papi Reddy Ankannagari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1309/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR

Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

United Steel Allied Industries Pvt Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, M Poorna Chander RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad, SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 274

extent of Rs.13,75,31,110/- for the assessment year under consideration. Therefore, observed that, the assessee company is liable for penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, levied penalty of Rs.1,58,65,589/- which is 50% of the total tax sought to be evaded on under-reported ... income as a consequence of misreporting of income. The said lapse is even continued in the Order passed by the Assessing Officer imposing penalty under section 270A of the Act, where the Assessing Officer has not recorded any finding as to satisfaction with regard to under-reporting of income

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

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

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 154

further erred in proposing the penalty proceedings u/s 270A. The Ld. AO erred in taking into consideration that in order to levy penalty under section 270A of the Act, the primary condition is to prove ‘mens rea’, i.e., guilty mind or an act of conscious concealment or furnishing of inaccurate

Imtiyaz Ahmad Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4647/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A). The Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that without awaiting for adjudication of the said appeal, the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order confirming the levy of penalty. It was submitted that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal challenging the levy of penalty only after taking into consideration the result of the quantum appeal. It was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Assessee that in view of the aforesaid facts, impugned order be set aside.

For Appellant: Shri Virabhadra MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Shahab Akram Khan

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

present case, the decision of the aforesaid appeal in quantum proceedings would have a bearing on the challenge to levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Given the aforesaid facts, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned Order, dated 05/02/2025, passed by the CIT(A) confirming ... levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act with the direction to CIT(A) to adjudication the appeal afresh after taking into consideration the order passed by NFAC in the quantum appeal preferred by the Assessee. The Assessee is directed to take necessary step to expedite disposal

Kanodia Technoplast Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act is

ITA 1355/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 132ASection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 270Section 270ASection 274Section 37

held the additional income determined in the assessment proceeding by the department as under-reporting of income and accordingly, levied penalty under section 270A of the Act.” 9. In the instant case the AO has made the addition of Rs.8,84,936/-on account of late payment of Employees Contribution

Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1257/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1257/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Jayshivrai Nagri Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pathsanstha Limited, S Ward-1, Kolhapur. 2832B Ward Yamula Devalaya Najik Karveer, Kolhapur – 416012. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaqas6598A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/09/2025 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.11.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law and on merit in levying penalty under ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO erred in law and on merit in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AO erred in law and on merit in levying penalty under section 272A

Ravi Doreswami, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1192/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Ravi Doreswamy, Vs. Ito, No.28/1, 17Th Cross, Kanakanagar R T Nagar Ward – 5(3)(1), Post Raichur. Bangalore – 560 032, Karnataka Pan : Ajmpd 8501 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Vivekprasada P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri.Vivekprasada P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

received, the salary income was assessed at Rs.37,73,323/- and assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. The AO imposed penalty under section 270A of the Act and passed Order on 25.03.2022 for under reporting income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. 3. Aggrieved from ... appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee is a salaried person. Because of the revised return, the AO imposed penalty under section 270A of the Act and penalty Order was passed on 25.03.2022. The notice issued under section 250 of the Act by the learned

Getinge India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4341/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 234Section 234CSection 250Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 43A

upholding the action of Ld. AO in levying interest under section 2348 and Section 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of Ld. AO in initiating the penalty proceedings under section

Snehalkumar Bhogilal Trivedi, Gandhinagar vs. NFAC, Assessment Unit, Present Juris. the ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 740/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 740/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) बनाम/ Snehalkumar Bhogilal Nfac, Assessment Unit Trivedi – Present Jurisdiction - Vs. B-502, Radhe Helios, Income Tax Officer Reliance Chowkdi, Orbit Ward-3(3)(5), Mall, Kudasan, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Gujarat – 382421 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaxpt4034G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Pritesh Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 31.03.2022 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Ground raised

Brijlaxmi Paper Products Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 853/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 853/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Brijlaxmi Paper Products Pvt. Limited,……..Appellant 686, Shrachi Tower, Anandapur Em Byepass, Kolkata-700107 [Pan:Aafcb2003G] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

claim on which penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for mis-reporting of income was initiated. Subsequently, show cause notices for penalty under section 270A for misreporting of income were issued to the assessee on 16.11.2021 and 25.11.2021 asking to show-cause as to why penalty order under ... made misreporting of income to the extent of Rs.1,51,233/- and opined that it was a fit case to levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer determined the tax which sought to be evaded to the extent of Rs.50

Metso Oyj, Finland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and the order of the Ld

ITA 616/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270ASection 56Section 9

Metso OYJ. income, the Appellant was entitled to a refund and thus, section 234B was not applicable on the Appellant 5. Initiation of penalty, under section 270A of the Act 5.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in proposing ... initiate penalty under section 270A of the Act. 6. That the Appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case as appearing in the directions