“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

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

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

Himanshu Dalelsing Hingar, Surat vs. ITO-Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 1310/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1310/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Himanshu Dalelsing Hingar Vs. The Ito, 309, 3Rd Floor, Tulsi Ward - 2(3)(6), Complex,Somnath Mahadev Ni Surat Sheri, Haripura, Bamni, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amaph6148M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 250Section 270A

reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. 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. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest

Karimnagar Milk Producer Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 1388/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 270A

while clearing the back-log work of his office gathered about the order passed by the A.O imposing penalty u/s 270A of Rs.7,74,504/- on the assessee company. Elaborating further, the assessee company had stated before the CIT(A) that on learning about the penalty order it had without ... fresh adjudication, therefore, we refrain from dealing with the contentions advanced by the Ld.AR based on which the imposition of penalty U/s. 270A of the Act has been assailed before us. The Ground of Appeal No. 5 is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 21. The Grounds of Appeal

Patodia Forgings Gears Limited, Pune vs. The DCIT Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 2745/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai-Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 270A

following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts & circumstances prevailing in the case & as per the provisions of the Act, the imposition of penalty u/s 270A amounting to Rs. 8,82,096/- against the assessee is unlawful, not tenable in law and without following the rules of natural justice

Mr. Tasavver Husain, Farrukhabad vs. ACIT, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 270A

Therefore the AO, on the basis of material on record before him,held that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Actfor underreporting since the income assessed was greater than the basic exempt income and there was conscious underreporting/ misreporting of income.Accordingly,he levied

Mr. Tasavver Husain, Farrukhabad vs. ACIT, Farrukhabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 270A

Shivam Niranjanlal Poddar, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Ward, 2, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/RJT/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.310/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shivam Niranjanlal Poddar, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Plot No.62, Sector-1, Ward-2, Gandhidham-370 201 Vs Gandhidham-370 201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aiypp 2374 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 57

assessment order made addition u/s 57 of the Act amounting to Rs.62,58,034/-. The Assessing officer while passing assessment order initiated penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty vide order dated 23.01.2023 @ 50% of tax sought to be evaded and worked out the penalty

Manojbhai Parsottambhai Poriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1731/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1731/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Manojbhai Parsottambhai V/S. Ito – 42(1)(3), Poriya बिधम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Flat No. 602, 6Th Floor, Kurla Complex, Bandra Thakkar Plaza, Kandivali East, Maharashtra-400051 West, Maharashtra- 400067 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amspp6898B Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 69C

tolerance limits prescribed 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 8 CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 270A & 272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 9 CIT(A) erred

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 744/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 270A(6)Section 40

adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and confirm the penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,26,23,885/- on intangible additions made by AO. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred ... submitted that the disallowances that have been made by the Assessing Officer were un-called for and the penalty u/s 270A of the Act was also uncalled for. It was submitted that the disallowances during the assessment had been made on the following points: - (i) Interest expenses on unsecured loans

DCIT, C-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh vs. The Institution of Civil Engineers Society, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE

Kishan Kumar Agarwal, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 574/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri D Praveen, DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(6)Section 271A

hearing, submitted that the Assessing Officer had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in assuming jurisdiction for imposing penalty u/s 270A of Page 6 of 13 ITA No 574 of 2023 Kishan Kumar Agarwal the Act. Elaborating on his contention, the learned AR submitted that the Assessing ... section 270A(6) of the Act, the amount of the undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB was not exigible for imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The learned AR to fortify his contention has specifically drawn our attention to section 271AAB (1A) of the Act r.w.s. 270A

Kutch District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Anjar - Kutch vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

ITA 113/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.113& 114/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Kutch Dist. Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. C/O Apmc Premises, Versamedinaka, Near Railway Crossing, Anjar, Kukch-370 110 Vs. Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaak 9845 N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Akshay Modi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By :Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, A.Μ: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ays) 2018-19 & Ay 2020-21, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) (For Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac'), Both Dated 09.01.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act'), Which In Turn Arose, Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi / Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, On 05.03.2021 & 25.9.2022, Respectively. 2. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, We Have Clubbed These Appeals & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3.

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Modi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)(d)

assessee of Rs.5,85,74,816/- is being disallowed and added to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Penalty u/s 270A of the Act is initiated for under reporting of income." However, we note that in the computation of total income, the Assessing Officer by mistake

Sachin Baban Shinde, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhananjay Vijay SalunkheFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 147Section 148Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,46,760/- on the ground that the assessee had under reported income in consequence of 2 misreporting without appreciating that the said levy of penalty ... complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assessee and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assessee was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned Commissioner

Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Vs. Ito, National Faceless H. No.377, Mhb Colony, Assessment Centre, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Delhi. Pan : Aekps3129Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 56,350/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported & Mis Reported His Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

being salaried employee from technical background, was totally dependent upon the tax consultant for filing income tax return and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assessee. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax passes the order under section

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Zeal Education Society, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1642/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Puranikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

books of account of the assessee which clearly reflected under-reporting of income and therefore, the assessee is liable to pay penalty u/s 270A of the Act. He levied penalty of Rs. 90,63,723/- @ 50% of the amount of tax of Rs. 1,81,27,447/- payable on under ... Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO observing that for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act, assessed income should be greater than the processed income u/s 143(1)(a), however, in the present case of the assessee

Kanchan Santoshlumar Srivastav, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2536/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 270A

grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 270A by the Assessing Officer on account of under-reporting of income. 10. Since the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the Assessing ... Officer for fresh adjudication, therefore, the issue relating to levy of penalty u/s 270A is also restored to his file for fresh adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Kanchan Santoshlumar Srivastav, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2533/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 270A

Up Government Employees Welfare, Lucknow vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals in ITA No

ITA 743/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

giving adequate opportunity of being heard The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts and Confirm the penalty u/s 270A of Rs 2,31,28,015/- The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order

Mr. Amol Chandulal Shah (Now Deceased Thru His Legal Heir Wife Mrs. Sarita Shah ), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 22(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1813/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amol Chandulal Shah I.T.O. Ward (22)(1)(6),Mumbai [Now Deceased][Thru’ His Legal Piramal Chambers, Dr. S S Heir][Wife Mrs. Sarita Shah] Vs. Rao Marg, Parel, 26-A,Syndicate Bank Building, Sir Mumbai-400012 P.M. Road, Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aacps 2065 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev WaglayFor Respondent: Ms. Deepa Hiray, Sr. DR

Section 270A

book page no. 10 to 13. Despite this information available to the assessing officer, he passed the impugned order on 26.08.2021 for levy penalty u/s 270A of the Act amounting to Rs. 70,31,812/-. The Ld. CIT(A) though acknowledged the fact of the death of the assessee, however

Hotel Galaxy, Thane vs. ACIT Central Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 6859/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 144Section 250Section 270A

additional income was filed. 6. The ld.DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. However, the ld.AR has submitted that no penalty u/s 270A is justified on income determined on estimated basis. 6.1 We have heard rival submissions and have carefully gone through the record. We find that

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2), Gangtok, Gangtok Sikkim vs. Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Gangtok Sikkim

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

ITA 1711/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 274Section 40Section 80GSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting penalty u/s. 270A amounting to Rs. 1,00,18,578/- considering there is no under reporting/misreporting of income ignoring the facts that Sikkim State Cooperative Bank Limited ... Subsequently, notices/reminder letters were issued on various dates but there was no response from the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. AO imposed a penalty u/s 270A of the Act amounting to (i) Rs. 1,00,18,578/- at the rate of 200% of tax payable on under-reported income in consequence