← 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

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

convenience, are not inclined to reproduce here. 17. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are interconnected and pertain to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 18 18. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

convenience, are not inclined to reproduce here. 17. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are interconnected and pertain to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 18 18. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged

Kishor Kumar Garg, Joura Road, Morena vs. ACIT, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/AGR/2025[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkishor Kumar Garg, Vs. Acit, Joura Road, Morena, Gwalior, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acopg5428J Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A

materials available on record. Kishor Kumar Garg 3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the penalty u/s 270A of the Act could be levied in respect of ad hoc disallowance of expenses @ 10% on account of repairs to machinery and compensation ... facts and circumstances of the instant case. However, since the quantum appeal is not before me, I only hold that levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not warranted as there is neither under reporting of income nor mis-reporting of income as the addition has been made

Fujiyama Power Systems, Parwanoo vs. ITO Parwanoo, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the penalty of Rs

ITA 977/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 68

assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 08.04.2021, ignoring the undisputed fact that the said assessment order as well as the notice initiating penalty u/s 270A dated 08.04.2021 is set-aside/ quashed by the jurisdictional Himachal Pradesh High Court, therefore penalty order passed u/s 270A on the basis of already

Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

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

ITA 774/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.774/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs Ito, Ward Indrajeet Suresh Magar, 100, Saroj, Niwas, Ruikar 2(1), Kolhapur Colony, Kolhapur-416003 Maharashtra Pan-Aiapm7745G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and vide order dated 26.09.2023 levied penalty of Rs. 46,05,646/- Against the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act, Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but due to non compliance assessee failed to succeed. 6. I observe that ... appellate proceedings against the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act assessee has failed to respond to the notice of hearing and therefore Ld. CIT(A) has 3 dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. However considering the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and also observing that

Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 347/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12Section 143(2)Section 144Section 25Section 270A

copy of screenshots from the Income Tax portal and email received from the Department on 17.05.2023 containing intimation of show cause notice for penalty u/s 270A asking the assessee to make submissions in support of its claim (pages 7 to 9 of the paper book refers). The Ld. AR submitted

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar, Ahamednagar vs. Kanifnath Grmain Bigar Sheti Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, Maldad

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2271/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified in deleting the penalty u/s 270A as the Department is in process of filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the quantum appeal order passed

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Kanifnath Grmain Bigar Sheti Sahakari, Maldad Sangamner

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2270/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified in deleting the penalty u/s 270A as the Department is in process of filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the quantum appeal order passed

Amruta Vivek Padalikar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1914/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 270ASection 50C

challenged the quantum addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) and appeal in ITA No. 1914/PUN/2025 is filed against the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) by the Ld. AO. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

Amruta Vivek Padalikar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhpaur

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

ITA 1913/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 270ASection 50C

challenged the quantum addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) and appeal in ITA No. 1914/PUN/2025 is filed against the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) by the Ld. AO. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed

Gopal Banik, Kolkata vs. PCIT(Central), Kolkata -2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1430/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Gopal Banik…….…………..……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant 20, Apc Road, Kol- 700009.. [Pan: Aegpb1186E] Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Kolkata…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K K Khemka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Kumar Mehta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 174 Days & The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Going Over The Said Affidavit, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind The Delay & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(7)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

material available on record. Going over the relevant portion of the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that while initiating penalty u/s 270A, the ld. CIT(A) held that ‘the penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated separately for underreporting of income as consequence of misreporting of income

Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, India vs. DCIT, Circle Int Tax 1(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3600/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2022-23] Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Dcit, Kothi No. 2, Dear Baba Circle Int. Tax 1(2)(2), Jaimal Singh, Beas, Vs Civic Centre, Minto Road, Amritsar, New Delhi-110002. Punjab-143204 Pan- Afqpd5302R Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 270A

assessee. Hence the amount of Rs. 4,35,457/- is added back to the income of the assessee as rental income. The penalty u/s 270A for underreporting of income….” 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal

D.D.155Athoorp.U.Publicservantsco-Opthrift&Creditsociety Limited, Sithayankottai vs. Ward 1, Dindigul

In the result the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

ITA 2801/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Raviassessment Years: 2020-21 D.D.155 Athoor P.U.Public Servants Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ward-1, Limited, Dindigul No.8-1-19 Market Road, Sithavankottai Aathoor-Tk, Dindigul Tamil Nadu-624 708. [Pan: Aacad2029F]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(8)Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the AO is justified in levying a penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Admittedly, the disparity between returned income and assessed income had arisen on account of addition made by the AO by disallowing

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4204/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Hi-Tech Engineers (supra), we held that the penalty order dated 07.08.2023 thereby levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act cannot be sustained therefore the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and quashed and penalty levied u/s

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Liquidhub India Private Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

been filed by the assessee in the paper book at page 113 to 121, 108 to 111. 8. The Assessing Officer(AO) levied Penalty u/s 270A for under reporting of Income. Aggrieved by the Penalty Order the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) who confirmed the Penalty. Then assessee ... Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT 117 Taxmann.com 96 (BOM) and ITAT order in Assessee’s own case. 10. The said issue of Penalty u/s 270A, is decided in favour of Assessee by the Order of ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA No.1260/PUN/2025. Ld.AR for the Assessee filed copy

Asmeeta Infratech Limited, Bhiwandi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 2764/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

account human error and was rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act as well. The assessee submits that it is not liable for any penalty u/s 270A as it has neither under-reported any income nor has misreported any income. There _had been a genuine and _bonafide error which was readily ... income. Once the reason for not including this amount in the return of income has been explained as bonafide and inadvertent mistake, no penalty u/s 270A of the Act is justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers

Shivalaya Engineering Works, Mandideep vs. ITO, Bhopal

In the result we are of the considered opinion

ITA 675/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishivalaya Engineering Works, Ito बनाम/ E-75A, New Industrial Area, Bhopal Vs. Mandideep Huzur, Polaha, B.O. Raisen, (Pan:Acifs4103J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

Assessee on 30/6/2025. The opportunity of being heard is not given to assessee. 7. The learned assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A on account of under reporting of the income to the extent of addition at Rs. 3990/- and It is consequential in nature. 8. The learned

Radheshyam Agarwal, Bhopal vs. The PCIT, Central, Bhopal

ITA 417/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 253Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Laxmichand and Company, Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwl, Gwalior

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 313/AGR/2025[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(Appeals), NFAC (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi has grossly erred in sustaining the penalty u/s 270A of the 2 | P a g e Income Tax Act addition of Rs. 11,76,204 / made by the AO on account of arbitrarily

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hongkong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Intt Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1664/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

3546/DEL/2023 & 1664/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23] Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Vs. ACIT 32. Ground 4 regarding penalty u/s 270A is premature and ground 5 regarding interest u/s 234B is consequential. ITA No. 3546/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2021-22] ITA No. 1664/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2022-23] 33. The facts