“penalty u/s 270A”

Ajay Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Noida Gbn, Noida

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

Rs.12,61,420/- being difference between the total income as per original return of income and revised return. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under-statement of income in consequence of mis-reporting and thereof. During penalty proceedings, AO was not satisfied with ... explanation offered by the assessee and hence levied penalty u/s 270A @ 200% of Rs.12,61,420/-. Accordingly, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised several grounds of appeal and also submitted detailed submissions in reference to grounds of appeal before him as under :- “Reply of Ground

Gaurav Kataria, Gurugram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

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

144B of the Act, is without proper application of mind, knowledge of provisions of the Act, latest information etc.; and not initiation of penalty u/s 270A prima facie appear to be erroneous and pre- judicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, ld. PCIT observed that the assessment order is erroneous

Tarun Jain, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(4) Fbd, Faridabad

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmantarun Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), House No.641, Sector 7B, Faridabad. Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (Pan : Agepj5824D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 Date Of Order : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal With A Delay Of 62 Days From The Date Of Appellate Order. He Submitted That On January 7, 2025, A Robbery Took Place At The Assessee’S Shop For Which An Fir Was Registered In Sector 8, Faridabad, A Copy Of The Same Is Placed On Record & This Unfortunate Incident Caused

another show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act dated 10.05.2021 was issued to the assessee directed him to explain why penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not imposed, fixed for compliance on 17.05.2021 but still no response has been filed 7. During penalty proceedings, Assessing Officer ... That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the act of ld. Assessing Officer in imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Act is without following principles of natural justice. 3. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case

Rama University Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh vs. The Assessment Unit, Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2020-21 Rama University, Vs The Assessment Unit, 100, Rama City, Delhi. Gt Road, Mandhana, Kanpur Dehat. Pan: Aadtr0638L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Ashutosh Thakur, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.06.2025 Passed U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Assessment Unit, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

that there was error in exercising jurisdiction by expanding limited scrutiny case without due approval of the competent authority, then, no case for penalty u/s 270A of the Act survives. The appeal is allowed. The impugned penalty order is quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2025. (NAVEEN CHANDRA

Kanvar Corporation, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-50(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Kanvar Corporation, Vs Dcit, A-26, Basement & Ground Circle-50(1), Floor, New Delhi. Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aalfk6427E (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2016-17/10066962 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 21.12.2021 Passed U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ao, Nafac (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

proceedings. However, there is no findings of NFAC on merits to show that the issues giving rise to levy of penalty u/s 270A were examined in the context of nature of disallowance and would the nature of disallowance on account of sundry creditors should result into levy 2 of penalty