“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

Ibm Australia Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 487/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that

Anand Shaktikumar Sancheti, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 115BSection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT Appeals, NFAC, Delhi has grossly erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is illegal, invalid and against the principles of natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Ram Babu Singh, Bihar vs. The ITO-2(1), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Babu Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Near Gayatri Mandir, 2(1), बनाम/ Saharsa, Bhopal Vs. Bihar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Cufps2957D Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 154Section 270ASection 271ASection 69A

fact, the AO has also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 270A qua the impugned addition in assessment-order and subsequently imposed penalty u/s 270A vide order dated 04.01.2022, copy filed in Paper- Book at Page 3-4. Ld. AR submitted that the Income-tax Act, 1961 prescribes penalty u/s 271AAC ... incomes taxable u/s 68 to 69D whereas the penalty u/s 270A is for other cases. He submitted that by imposing penalty of section 270A and not of section 271AAC, the AO has made it unambiguously clear that he treated the impugned addition as not representing income u/s

Mrs Rohini Gaurishankar Kalyani, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 138/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.138/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Mrs. Rohini Gaurishankar Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Kalyani, 221D, Parvati Niwas, Yerwada Road, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411006. Pan : Abgpk1583K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying Penalty Of Rs.1,40,460 U/S 270A Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Under Reporting Of Income By The Assessee Without Appreciating The Facts As Well As The Law In This Regard.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala

Section 144Section 270ASection 270A(8)

parte u/s 144 of the IT Act by making disallowance of Rs.1,21,911/- towards foreign travel expenses being personal in nature. Penalty u/s 270A was also initiated on the basis of this disallowance for under reported income in consequence to misreporting. The AO issued show cause notices u/s 270A ... various occasions but the assessee remained absent & therefore the AO vide order dated 15-03-2022 imposed penalty u/s 270A(8) of the IT Act of Rs.1,40,460/- which is 200% of Rs.70,230/- (the tax payable in respect of under reported income) for under reporting of income

Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 918/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sharad Bhaskarrao The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, V Nashik. T No.1, Vanai Apartment, S Gangapur Road, Behind Kulswamini Apartment, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri Sourabho Nayak – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 02.05.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A]

Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

dated 22.02.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] “1. The learned A.O. is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.78,146/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income 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 assesses and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned A.O. ought

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai., Pratishtha Bhavan vs. Arun Subrahmanyam, Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs.50,48,116/- being 200% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on the addition of Rs.1 ... reproduced as under: - ' ' "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well us in law the LearnedA.O. has erred in levying penalty u/s 270A of the LT. Act, reasons assigned by him for doing the same are wrong and insufficient. Appellant contends;that there was no misrepresentation

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Private Limited, Andheri West vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Nariman Point

ITA 3615/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 44A

reporting of income. Thus, the penalty must be deleted.” Additional Grounds “The Ld. AO erred in law in imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 without specifying the specific clause of section 270A(9) of the IT Act for initiating the penalty proceedings. Thus, the penalty ... section (1) shall be equal to two hundred percent of the amount of tax payable on under- reported income. 9. Penalty u/s 270A of the I.T Act is very much leviable upon assessee in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors

Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 019/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd. Anand Plaza-2, Hudkeshwar Road, Raja Peth Bus Stop, Nagpur-440034. Pan: Aaaao2933P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Nagpur. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047262637(1) Dt. 14/11/2022 Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Confirmed The Order Levying Penalty Passed U/S 270A Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘Neac’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 246A(1)(aa)Section 250Section 270ASection 274(1)

this appeal on four grounds which substantively alleges that the appellate authority erred in law and facts & circumstance in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 3. The case was called twice; none appeared at the bequest of the assessee, in absence of any letter seeking adjournment, we deem ... East Asia (Hq) Pte Ltd Vs ACIT’ [WP(C) No 5111 of 2022] while dealing with the denial of immunity from levy of penalty u/s 270A vide para 6 held that; ‘the Respondents' action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section

Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1882/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Dcit, C/O-Anil Jain Dd & Co., 611, Surya Central Circle-14, Kiran Building, 19 K.G.Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaapg2240G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Garg, Adv. & Shri Rahul Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)

order imposing penalty @ 200% 30.05.2023 CIT(A) order affirming the penalty order dated 26.03.2022 4. During the penalty proceedings, Ld. AO imposed the penalty u/s 270A @ 200% of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income observing: a) That assessee had under-reported his income for the year under ... From the above, it is clear that the assessee was called upon to explain about under-reporting of income. But while imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Act, the AO imposed penalty @ 200% which falls under clause (8) of section 270A of the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench

Raveena Khera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-34(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 271ASection 69Section 69A

amount of Rs. 79,140/- as an addition of Income, under the head Income from the salary. With a request not to impose penalty u/s 270A (2) 6) The Appellant, in reply to the notice under section 271AAC and 270A (2) also requested the Assessing Officer to drop the penalty

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)

notice 26.11.2019 Underreporting of Income in consequence to misreporting 24.12.2020 Underreporting of Income in consequence to misreporting 26.5.2021 Why an order imposing penalty u/s 270A should not be passed It is thus clear that ld.AO at no stage of assessment/penalty proceedings sought explanation/ proved as to how assessee has misreported ... showcase which of the specific action of the appellant from clause (a) to (f) of s/s (9) was determinant before imposing the impugned penalty u/s 270A of the Act has rendered the entire proceedings invalid and thus untenable in the eyes of law. Consequently the penalty imposed u/s 270A

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)

penalty for concealment" mentioned in the reply of the assessee does not applicable to the nature of penalty initiated in this case, since penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act has been initiated in this case for under reporting of income which has been enacted with effect from 1st April ... found acceptable. 5. In view of above facts and discussion, it has been observed that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 270A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for under- reporting of income, for amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Tax sought

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]

Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

bank/Financial Institution. In view thereof in our considered view same cannot tantamount to under-reporting of income, consequently de-horses from attracting any penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 5. Insofar as the penalty imposed against disallowance of enhanced claim of gratuity exemption is concerned, we observed that, the appellant ... determined taxes. In view of the acceptance of addition made on account of disallowance of enhanced claim of exemption, the tax authorities levied penalty u/s 270A @ accelerated rate of 200% of tax sought to be evaded for mis-reporting of income through excess claims made in the revised ITR filed

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)

lead case. The assessee for A.Y.2017-18 has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 50,299/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income 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 assesses and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned CIT ought

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)

East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2976/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआ.अ.सं.2976 2976/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2020-2021) 2976 2976 East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Ltd. C/O. Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29Th Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400 028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaece8814F बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal & Fenil Bhatt, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT (DR)

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 70(2)

mandatory and consequential, therefore, ground no.8 is dismissed. 13. In ground no.9 of appeal, the Assessee has assailed initiation of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Challenge to penalty proceedings at this stage is pre mature, hence, ground no.9 of appeal is dismissed as such. 14. In the result, appeal

M/S. A-Kal Televerse Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, TDS, Circle-3(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1167/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Navneeth Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Stalin, B, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 270A(9)

income in consequence of misreporting. Relief sought 1. Consider the additional supporting evidence since compiled by the appellant. 2. Set aside the penalty u/s 270A(9) in respect of addition u/s 14A as an amount of Rs. 24,93,447/- has been added back in the computation, which is more ... than the amount of Rs. 20,78,990/- estimated by the officer. 3. Set aside the penalty u/s 270A(9), as the claim of expenditure towards Licence Fee paid on behalf of Doctors Rs. 13,87,311/- and Consultant Re-imbursement charges Rs. 13,72,967/- and is substantiated

Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solution Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 739/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountαντ Μεμβer

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna a/wFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Page 1 ITA No.739/Mum/2022 Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Energy Solutions Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle 2(3)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX

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

raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA Nos.1323 & 1324/PUN/2023 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalarao [A] “1. The learned CIT-(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,60,874 levied by the A.O without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified on facts ... assessee submits that in the reassessment order, the A.O has initiated penalty u/s 270A on a vague charge of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ also in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A, the exact limb of section 270A(9) which has been allegedly violated by the assessee has not been