← All Phrases

“penalty u/s 270A”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A583 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty u/s 270A is HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT ( (274 ITR 603), cited in 21 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty u/s 270A

HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT (
274 ITR 603 · 2005 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An inaccurate claim made by the assessee cannot be treated as a case of giving inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of imposing penalty.

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.

Judgments citing penalty u/s 270A

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

This business income is taxable at the rate of 40% along with surcharge and cess, as per the domestic law. Penalty u/s 270A is initiated for under reporting of income. 28. From the above mentioned discussion, the computation of total income of the assessee is computed as under: Particulars Amount

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act 1961 as per Article 13(A) of DTAA, the same is added back to the income of the assessee. The penalty u/s 270A for underreporting of income is being initiated. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel

ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Chaman, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2774/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

Section 147Section 250(4)

Hence the same amount i.e. Rs. 1,24,85,492/- is added in the total income of the assessee, Penalty u/s 270A is initiated separately for mis- representation of facts. (Addition: Rs. 1,24,85,492/-)" 9.1. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has uploaded detailed written submission against

Elayavoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 115/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Shaji, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 270A

parte without considering the merits of the case. In these two appeals, one appeal related to quantum and one appeal related to penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). ITA Nos.114 & 115/Coch/2025 Elayavoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kannur Page

Elayavoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 114/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Akhil Shaji, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 270A

parte without considering the merits of the case. In these two appeals, one appeal related to quantum and one appeal related to penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). ITA Nos.114 & 115/Coch/2025 Elayavoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kannur Page

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

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

ITA 820/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.819/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2020-21 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.820/ Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2020-21 K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Ward-2(1), Murali, Murali Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode Erode Dist, Tamil Nadu-638504. [Pan: Aabak3671M]

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 270ASection 80P

condonation of delay by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus in ITA No.819 Ld.AO had denied the action u/s 80P and in ITA Nos.820 penalty u/s 270A was imposed. The Ld. Counsel accordingly requested that its cases may be remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It was submitted that

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

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

ITA 819/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.819/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2020-21 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.820/ Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2020-21 K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Ward-2(1), Murali, Murali Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode Erode Dist, Tamil Nadu-638504. [Pan: Aabak3671M]

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 270ASection 80P

condonation of delay by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus in ITA No.819 Ld.AO had denied the action u/s 80P and in ITA Nos.820 penalty u/s 270A was imposed. The Ld. Counsel accordingly requested that its cases may be remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It was submitted that

Chaitali Hotels, Kolhapur vs. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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

ITA 1846/PUN/2024[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

this case, one by the assessing officer and one by the CIT(A). Now, the issue arises as to who can levy the penalty u/s 270A of the Act, and on which portion of underreported income. This issue has been elaborately discussed by the Pune Bench of Hon'ble ITAT ... required to initiate the penalty proceedings and only that authority can levy the penalty. In the present case, the satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 270A, with regard to the amount of Rs.5,06,267/- was of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act corresponding

Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 1(1)(3), Surat

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

ITA 20/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.20/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Jitendra Mehta, Vs. Ito, Office No.M-24, Mezn Floor, Ward – 1(1)(3), 10/21, Flox Chamber, Tata Road Surat No. 1, Opera House, Mumbai – 400004, Maharashtra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ambpm9018P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 50CSection 55A

order. ITA No.20/SRT/2025/AY.2018-19 Jitendra Mehta 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest

Lokesh Sachdeva, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

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

ITA 5740/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed as under;

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

notice on which the assessess’s case falls. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we have no hesitation to cancel the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as the penalty notice is vague and hence becomes fatal to the proceedings

Anurag Jaiswal, Lucknow vs. ITO2(1)/ Allahabad, Allahabad

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

ITA 50/ALLD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

from assessee’s side, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard. The subject matter of this appeal is the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act vide order dated 23/03/2023 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Act. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee

Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam Limited, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ranchi

In the result, grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 49/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jharkhand Urjaa Sancharan Nigam I.T.O., Limited, Ward 1(4), Vs. Sldc Building, Ranchi-834002. Ranchi. Pan No. Aadcj 3112 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 270A

interfere with the order of Assessing Officer levying the ITA 49/Ran/2023 Jharkhand Urjja Sancharan Nigam Ltd. Vs ITO penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 for misreporting by way of claiming carry forward of loss in a returns of income filed u/s 139(4) of the Income ... Income tax Act, 1961 for A Y: 2017-18 was indeed misreporting of income which called for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 ? 5. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend, modify and/or delete any or all of the above said grounds

The Saswad Mali Sugar Factory, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Solapur

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

ITA 312/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.312/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Saswad Mali Sugar Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Solapur. Factory, Malingar Tal. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur- 413108. Pan : Aaact9821D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 06.01.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of The Penalty Order U/S 270A Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 15.09.2021 By The Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal But All Are Directed Against The Findings Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri B. D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(2)

raised various grounds of appeal but all are directed against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 2 confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act at Rs.15,37,754/- levied by the Assessing Officer for under-reporting of income of Rs.1,02,96,316/- for reversal ... Assessing Officer (FAO) in the notice u/s 270A r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 26.08.2021 failed to state the specific reason for which penalty u/s 270A of the Act has been charged. It is also submitted that this legal issue being raised for the first time remained to be adjudicated

Ascot Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1-, Thane

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

ITA 4644/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income.” Additional Grounds of Appeal: 1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Ld. AO imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, as the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 270A ... No.11485/2016 dated 11.01.2017 and others. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Ld. AO imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 is bad in law as Penalty was initiated under one limb i.e. for misreporting of income

Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Thane

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

ITA 4643/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income.” Additional Grounds of Appeal: 1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Ld. AO imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, as the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 270A ... No.11485/2016 dated 11.01.2017 and others. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Ld. AO imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 is bad in law as Penalty was initiated under one limb i.e. for misreporting of income

Sudarshan De, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5177/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalsudarsan De Vs. Dcit C/O. C S Anand, Advocate Circle-2(1)(1), B-81, First Floor, (Part B), Ghaziabad Defence Colony, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi Pan: Abdpd3749F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Advocate C.S. Anand & Advocate Vaishnavi Yadav Revenue By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

Section 119(2)Section 147Section 270A

Assessee was completed at the return income. However, the Ld. A.O. recorded satisfaction for ‘under reporting the income’ and initiated of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. An order of penalty came to be passed u/s 270A of the Act vide order dated 02/05/2023 by imposing the penalty ... DCIT as there is no record of any condonation granted u/s 119(2) of the Act. Thus submitted that the order of penalty u/s 270A has been rightly imposed for ‘under reporting the income’, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused

Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4218/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi Ito Ward-42(2)(4) Room No. 375, Plot No. 2, Shashtri Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Maharashtra. Nagar, Near Bus Depot, Bandra West, Maharashtra-400050. [Pan No. Bexpk0365Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 21.08.2024 Date Of Hearing 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.05.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon. CIT erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A. 5. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon. CIT erred in initiating penalty u/s 272A(1)(d). Mohammad Mohsin Qureshi

M/S Pazhayangadi G Gold, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

assessee firm u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I am satisfied that income is under reported buy the assessee. Accordingly, penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby initiated for under reporting of income." The addition of Rs.3,31,24,523/- was made u/s ... section 68, section 69, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D. The penalty proceedings should have been initiated u/s 271AAC in place of penalty u/s 270A as initiated in the assessment order. This has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In addition, the Review

Vikas Vijay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

Income Tax had the jurisdiction to revise such an order. 6.2 The issue in dispute in the instant case is in relation to penalty u/s 270A of the Act which is more or less 'pari materia' with section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For ready reference the section ... addition to tax, if any, on the under-reportedincome. 6.3 Since, both the penalty u/s 271(1) of the Act as well as penalty u/s 270A of the Act could be initiated if the Assessing Officer or other authority prescribed may consider so under the proceeding of the Act. Therefore

Atri Papers, Private Limited., Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Atri Papers Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 7A, Sandesh Nagar, Vs. Knp-C, Haridwar, Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aafcp1500J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Ld. Counsel submits that since the expenses were disallowed on ad hoc basis there cannot be any penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Ld. DR further submits that ... reporting u/s 270A(9) of the Act. We also note that the assessment order records the satisfaction of the AO for initiating penalty u/s 270A(2) of the Act for under reporting of income but while levying penalty, the Assessing Officer has taken recourse to penalty for misreporting of income