← All Phrases

“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

Goodwill Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

ITA 2561/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2561/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Goodwill Wealth Management Private Limited, No. 73, 1St Floor, Tarana Complex, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaecg9766E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement Vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate Shri R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit 17.12.2024 19.12.2024 आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 270A

passed by the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19 in levying penalty under section 270A of the Income

Ims Health Analytics Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 300/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani & Sri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

Terra Infra Development Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 270A

assessee has not filed appeal challenging the addition made in view of no tax effect. The assessee furnished Form no.68, seeking immunity from penalty under section 270A of the Act in terms of provisions of section 270AA(2) on 07/01/2020 by accepting the disallowance and not filing appeal. 3 Terra ... under a bona fide belief. In terms of statutory provisions of section 270A(6), the Assessing Officer ought not to have levied the penalty under section 270A of Act, as matter of disallowance are supported by bona fide explanation. The case of assessee is not underreporting of income in terms

Aawagaman Mercantile LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3235/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaawagaman Mercantile Llp, 204, Anand Estate, Arthur Road 189, Mumbai, Jacob Circle S.O. Mumbai - 400011 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Abbfa0328F V/S Ito, Ward – 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata ……………. Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270Section 270A

penalty. In case the explanation does not meet the requirements of Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act, the Assessing Officer can levy penalty under Section 270A(7) of the Act at a rate of 50% of the amount of tax on under-reported income. However, in case the Assessing ... amount of tax on under-reported income by invoking provisions of Section 270A(8) of the Act. Therefore, while levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting income in consequence of misreporting, the Assessing Officer is required to establish that there is misreporting and that such misreporting

Goldman Sachs (India) Securiteis Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Add/Jt/Dy/Asst/CIT/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 763/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL

Rajesh M. Bhatia (HUF), Salem vs. DCIT, Salem

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

ITA 1912/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1911 & 1912/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh M. Bhatia (Huf), Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 389, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem 636 006. Salem. [Pan: Aachr9909R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 13.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Relating To Quantum Addition & Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 25Section 270A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19 relating to quantum addition and penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days

Rajesh M. Bhatia (HUF), Salem vs. DCIT, Salem

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

ITA 1911/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1911 & 1912/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh M. Bhatia (Huf), Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 389, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem 636 006. Salem. [Pan: Aachr9909R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 13.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Relating To Quantum Addition & Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 25Section 270A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19 relating to quantum addition and penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days

Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3337/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3337/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234CSection 234FSection 270A(1)Section 37(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Levy of interest under section 234F of the Act: 12. erred in levying interest under section 234F of the Act; Penalty under Section 270A(1): 13. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A(1) read with Section 274 of the Act. All the above grounds are without prejudice

Sushil Rajendra Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4734/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Revenue /For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.4734/Mum/2023

Patel Kenwood Private Limited, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.62/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Patel Kenwood Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ Plot No.100 To 103 Ward-2(1)(1) V/S. Timber Market Vadodara Gidc Ankleshwar Ankleshwar – 393 002 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccp 0220 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nilisha Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Nilisha Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(8)

Tribunal’s order was placed on record. In light of the deletion of the quantum addition, the AR argued that the penalty under section 270A of the Act cannot be sustained and should be deleted. 5. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of the lower authorities ... quantum addition by the Tribunal and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no justification for the levy of penalty under section 270A. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.1,66,080/- imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is hereby deleted. 7. In the result

Mother Theressa Educational Society, Amalapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274Section 80G

receipts and therefore the income offered by the assessee at Rs.NIL was accepted while finalising the assessment. However, Assessing Officer resorted to levy penalty under section 270A of the Act stating that the assessee has mis-reported income by computing the tax on the amount disallowed as depreciation and subjected

ACIT, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada vs. Mother Theressa Educational Society, Chaitanyanagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/VIZ/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Oct 2024

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274Section 80G

receipts and therefore the income offered by the assessee at Rs.NIL was accepted while finalising the assessment. However, Assessing Officer resorted to levy penalty under section 270A of the Act stating that the assessee has mis-reported income by computing the tax on the amount disallowed as depreciation and subjected

Anglo Eastern Institutes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhrianglo Eastern Institutes V/S. Cit(A)/Nfac, बनाम Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Unit No. 102, Mezzaniene Floor, Leela Business Park, Marol, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Maharashtra-400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcca3508K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 234Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 71

erred in law and in fact, in levying interest under section 234C of the Act. 5. Ground No. 5-Penalty under section 270A(1) of the Act The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A(1) read with section 270A(9)(a) of the Act for misrepresentation

The Hp State Co-Operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Limited, Shimla vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

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

ITA 155/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Balkrishan, ITPFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 275Section 282

appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 6. On merits we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,75,802/- levied by the AO. In this case, the assessment proceedings were completed wherein disallowance ... extent of Rs. 22,93,002/- and thereafter, he recorded his satisfaction that it is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 270A for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting thereof and penalty @ 200% of tax payable on the under reported income amounting

Man Mohan Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 28(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(3)Section 24Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274Section 9

operation rather than on the actual merits of the case. 3. That the order passed by NFAC confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A(9) by NFEAC by is bad in law and against the facts of the case since it failed to appreciate that: a. The assessment order ... against the facts of the case. 4. That NFAC has erred both in facts and law while confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A(9) by NFEAC since it failed to appreciate that the appellant had made the claim under section 24 read with section

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

Order and based on such order, there is no default committed by the Appellant for the year under consideration and hence levy of penalty Under Section 270A(7) of Rs. 2,59, 124 is not justifiable." ii. In the above submissions the appellant assessee company has itself submitted that ... decision of Honourable High Court and there is no misreporting as specified by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the order of levy of penalty under Section 270A. The Ld. Assessing Officer has specified in page-16 of the order that the word tax as defined in section

Asif Hussain Shah Sayad, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3094/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Mona MakwanaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (SR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 197Section 270Section 270ASection 271

well as Ld.CIT(A). 3.2. The Ld.AR submitted that, the present facts of the case does not satisfy the requirement for levy of penalty under section 270A for underreporting and misreporting of income as per sub clause 7, 8, 9. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision ... taxes paid by the assessee are accepted by the revenue. Therefore the present facts of the case do not qualify for imposing penalty under section 270A of the Act for mis-reporting or under reporting. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Ahmadbad Tribunal in case of Parulben Vijaykumar Patel

Adivasi Unnati Seva Mandal, Rajur District Ahmednagar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 948/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(d)

following grounds: 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law. Lower Authorities have erred a levying the penalty under section 270A of IT Act sum of Rs.27,65,666 being 200% of Income tax sum of Rs.13,82,883 for alleged default of misreporting

Laburnum Mahindra Gardens Co Op Hsg Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3657/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharshi & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Nara a/w. Shri. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri. Akhatar Hussain Ansari, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 2Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 3Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

which is consequential. Therefore, the same needs no separate adjudication. 9. The issue arising in ground no. 3 pertains to the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act, which is premature at this stage. Therefore, ground no. 3 is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal

Shell Information Technologies International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumba

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4711/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell Information V/S. Dcit (International Tax)- Technology International बनाम 4(2)(1), Bv 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, C/O. Bsr & Co. Llp, Air India Building, 2Nd Floor, Lodha Excelus, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai-400021 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics9091A Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

issued to the Appellant wherein no refund was received by the Appellant without appreciating the facts and circumstance of the case.” Penalty under section 270A of the Act 15. Erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act for misreporting/underreporting particulars of income without appreciating the facts and circumstances