“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

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

Where GST Input Credit was mistakenly merged with expenses and same was suomotu surrendered by assessee by revising return, however revenue imposed penalty under section 270A, since revenue wasn't sure whether it was a case of misrepresentation or suppression of facts or claim of expense sub-clauses ... DCIT mechanically. Where the assessee has withdrawn its claim for deduction of education cess voluntarily it is entitled for immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Further it noted that the assessee has satisfied sub-section (1) and (2) of section 270AA viz.(i) paid

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

M/S Shree Ganesh Jewellers Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle V(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 172/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.J. Shalley, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

Lacs, to that extent, it is clearly a case of under reporting of the income and which is liable for levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 3.1 It was further submitted that the decision relied on by the Ld. AR in case of VDB Infra and Realty ... Private Limited (supra) is in the context of miss-reporting of income and levy of penalty under section 270A(9) of the Act and therefore the same stands distinguishable and not applicable in the facts of the present case. It was accordingly submitted that the order so passed

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 916/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.915 & 916/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 15.02.2023, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 19.01.2022 & 20.01.2022 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Issue Involved Is

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

assessing the total income at Rs.8,81,897/-. The AO initiated ITA Nos.915 & 916/PUN/2023 for A.Y’s.2017-18 & 18-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare [A] penalty under section 270A(10) of the Act. The AO during the penalty proceedings gave opportunity to the assessee and held that assessee has under reported ... income, accordingly, levied penalty under section 270A for under reporting. Submission of the ld.AR : 4. The ld.Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that there was no mis-reporting of the income. The ld.AR relied on the following decisions of ITAT Pune Bench :  Dinsesh Sitaram Patil Vs. ITO in ITA No.56/PUN/2022

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 915/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

Shree Capital Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 111/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270A

read with section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 06.04.2021. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 270A on account of under-reporting his income and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs.58,28,617/- vide order dated 26.03.2022. 4. Dissatisfied with

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3339/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

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 12. Erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act for misreporting/underreporting particulars of income appreciating the facts and circumstances

Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

attention to penalty order dated 30.12.2021 passed under section 270A of the Act. The ld.AR explained that the Assessing Officer(AO) has levied penalty under section 270A(9)(e) of the Act. The ld.AR explained that the sub-clause (e) Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalarao [A] is for failure to record ... made in the assessment order. However, in the penalty order, the AO has invoked section 270A(9)(e) of the Act for levying penalty. The Section 270A(9)(e) is reproduced here as under : [Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalarao [A] 270A

Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward.2(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1323/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Section 147Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 9

Sachanand Relumal Jagwani, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 1044/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1044/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sachanand Relumal Jagwani, The Income Tax Officer, Bunglow No.1/20, Marrygold V Ward-7(3), Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, Behind S Gold Adlab Theatre, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaxpj1950B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 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(Appeals) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 03.08.2023 Confirming The Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deciding On Merits The Followings Grounds Taken In The Grounds Of Appeal. (A) The Assessing Officer Has Eared In Levying Penalty Of Sachanand Relumal Jagwani [A]

Section 250Section 270ASection 275

against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.08.2023 confirming the penalty under section 270A of the Act. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

Meeta Bhagat, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation1(1)(2), New Delhi

ITA 2339/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms Lalitha Krishnamurthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(14)(b)Section 270A

addition in arbitrary manner, which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law. 9. The Ld. AO had erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act which is highly unjustified and bad in law. 10. The appellant company craves the right to add, amend or modify

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

erred both on facts and in law in confirming the penalty levied by the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee that penalty under section 270A(9)(a) of the Act was levied without recording any satisfaction holding that the case falls under clause (a) to section 270A

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 225/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 224/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Clifford Chance Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Int. Tax

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2020-21

ITA 3377/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandrasa No. 437/Del/2023

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

234B of the Act. Clifford Chance PTE. Ltd. vs. ACIT 15. That the mechanical endorsement in the impugned order to the effect that penalty under section 270A of the Act is initiated for "under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income" is illegal ... levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 18. That the mechanical endorsement in the impugned order to the effect that penalty under section 270A of the Act is initiated for "under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income" is illegal and bad in law.” Clifford Chance

Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2020-21

ITA 2681/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandrasa No. 437/Del/2023

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

Satyam Print House, Mumbai vs. Additional /Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 2898/MUM/2023[ 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan

Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)(x)

same. However, vide order dated 19/06/2023, the CIT(A) reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer and confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material ... Thus, in view of the above, we hold that in the facts and 13. circumstances of the present case, penalty under Section 270A(7) 8 of the Act could not have been levied on the additional income of INR 35,00,000/-. Accordingly, the penalty

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

opposed to law. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of learned assessing officer in levying penalty under section 270A(9) of the Act . 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in levying penalty for under

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1104/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No.234, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Appellant Respondent C.O.No.5/Bang/2024 (In Ita No.1104/Bang/2023) Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 095. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Akta Jain B, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) By The Assessee Arise Out Of Cit(A)’S Order Dated 27.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. C.O. No.5/Bang/2024 Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Akta Jain B, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

initiated for the additions / disallowances made in the quantum assessment. During the course of the penalty proceedings, assessee was directed to explain why penalty under section 270A of the Act ought not to be imposed. In response to the same, assessee filed reply. However, the explanation offered by the assessee ... imposed penalty of Rs.1,14,70,994/- under section 270A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the Order imposing penalty under section 270A of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A), by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court