“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

Suhas Jagannath Kanase, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1638/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Raka &For Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 143(2)Section 192ASection 270A

hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no.4, 5 & 6 are allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The ground no.7 challenging the initiation of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act is premature hence dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

Shaik Abdul Khader, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd. Afzal

Section 270ASection 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

following effect: “7. Iam satisfied that the assessee underreported his income to the extent of Rs. 2,36,141/-, hence penalty u/s 270A is also initiated separately.” 11. On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. AO has clearly recorded the initiation of penalty proceedings. Therefore

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty u/s 270A” a penalty of Rs.4,16,860/- was levied on the assessee being 200% of Tax on unreported income. That the aforesaid penalty order bears No. ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2021-22/1041697988 ... notice issued, assessee furnished his reply on 01.01.2022 through E- Portal. Assessee was again show caused vide notice dated 14.03.2022 as to why penalty u/s. 270A of the Act should not be levied for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting. No reply was received from the assessee

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 670/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

contemplated too. 2.2 That as and by way of an order (penalty) passed u/s 270A of the Act i.e. “Misreporting penalty u/s 270A” a penalty of Rs.4,16,860/- was levied on the assessee being 200% of Tax on unreported income. That the aforesaid penalty order bears No. ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2021 ... notice issued, assessee furnished his reply on 01.01.2022 through E- Portal. Assessee was again show caused vide notice dated 14.03.2022 as to why penalty u/s. 270A of the Act should not be levied for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting. No reply was received from the assessee

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

provided in section 270A(6)(a) of the Act, we hold that the present facts does not make the revenue eligible to levy penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 14. We find that the ld AR also made argument on the ground that there was absolutely no mala fide intention

Chandrakant Pandurang Kharat, Panvel vs. Assesment Unit Income Tax Department, New Delhi

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

ITA 1534/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati (virtually)

Section 270A

NFAC vide ITA No.1535/PUN/2025 order dated 14.07.2025 for assessment year 2018-19. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore the issue of penalty u/s 270A to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh after completion of the quantum proceeding. Needless

Ramkrushna Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1411/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 144Section 270A

/NFAC. Considering the above fact that the appeal against the quantum addition is still pending for disposal on the basis of which impugned penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act was imposed, therefore, in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate ... /NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh involving the issue of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act upon disposal of appeal against the quantum addition for the same assessment year filed by the assessee. Needless to mention

Vaibhav Bhargava, Thane vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai-27, Vashi, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 270A

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and set aside the assessment order with the directions to pass fresh assessment order initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the assessee

Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti Sankari Pathsansth Maryadit, Borban Ghargaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2089/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2087&2089/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Vs Ito, Ward-2, Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti San Ahmednagar Kari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Borban Ghargaon, Ghargaon, Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605 Maharashtra Pan-Aaeas8066K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl

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

evenly dated 28.08.2024 which are arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 13.09.2022 and order levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act dated 20.03.2023 respectively. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 309 days in filing of the instant appeal ... concerned since the quantum addition issue has been restored to the file of Ld. JAO, therefore the grounds raised against levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act being dependant upon the quantum addition are also restored to the file of Ld. JAO for denovo adjudication. 6. In the result

Savta Maharaj Gramin Bigarsheti Sankari Pathsansth Maryadit, Borban Gahrgaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2087/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl

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

Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar, Pune vs. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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

ITA 1700/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 69A

same would show that unless an assessee is first found to have ‘under-reported income’ within the scope of sub-section (2), penalty u/s 270A cannot be levied. He submitted that sub-section (9) relating to ‘mis-reporting’ becomes relevant only if sub-section (2) is attracted. He submitted that ... envisaged for 'under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting'. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) levying penalty u/s 270A should be deleted and the ground raised by the assessee be allowed. 13. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied

M/S Himalayan Vacations, P. Ltd., Nanital vs. ACIT, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Himalayan Vacations Private Acit, Limited, Circle-2(1)(1), 01, Himalayan Vacations Private Vs. Haldawani. Limited, Tallital, Nainital-263002. Pan:Aacch5584P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, Adv. Department By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274Section 9

reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 2 IT No.43/DDN/2025 M/s Himalayan Vacations Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Thereafter, the AO has levied the penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) of the Act of Rs.3,56,478/- being 200% of the tax payable on such income for under reporting of income ... appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee all the grounds taken by the assessee are in respect to the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act thus they are taken together for consideration. 5. Before us, the Ld.AR submits that from the perusal of show cause notice issued

Suman Chhabra, Jammu and Kashmir vs. Ward 1(1), Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir

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

ITA 191/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 191/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 147Section 250Section 270A

department the assessment was completed ex parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 on 07.02.2022 on a total income of Rs.25.90 lakhs. 4.1 Penalty u/s 270A has been initiated for misreporting of income leading to concealment of income and in absence of any representation or explanation in response to such penalty, notices

Oc Sweaters LLP, Mehrauli vs. Ward 29(5), New Delhi, Civic Centre

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

ITA 4363/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: the AO wherein the correct figures of new workmen were filled in. The AO had not accepted the said report as it was not filed online as provided in section 80JJAA of the Act and deduction claimed was disallowed.

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 8Section 80J

assessee is partly allowed. 12. This appeal in ITA No.4363/Del/2025 is filed by assessee against the order of confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA of Rs.30,34,160/-. Since, we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee

O.C Sweater LLP, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 3610/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 8Section 80J

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 743/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

manner. Further, it can be noticed that the assessee was being provided with draft penalty order and was asked as to why the penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied in its case, for which the assessee neither replied nor filed any submission Therefore, the claim

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 736/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

Vishal Jain, Indore vs. ITO 4(4), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 339/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271A

Later when the assessee updated email id on portal and on 29.11.2024 received another notice from AO’s office for imposition of penalty u/s 270A, the assessee filed a reply dated 07.12.2024 to AO informing that his appeal against assessment-order was pending and hence the penalty matter

Isat Africa Limited Fzc, United Arab Emirates vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the final assessment order passed by AO is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms

ITA 832/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanisat Africa Limited Fzc Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Office No. 5 Pre-Fab, C Phase Ii, Of Income Tax Fujairah Free Zone Fujairah, Dubai, International Tax Circle- United Arab Emirates, Dubai - 2(2)(2) 999999 Mumbai, Maharashtra. Pan – Aagci8661Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 201Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

Ground no. 3 and 4 which pertains to levying of the interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act as well as initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act, in our view our above findings on Ground no. 1 and 2, iSAT Africa Limited FZC pales into insignificance

Narayanbhai Shivabhai Patel, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(6)(b)Section 56(2)(x)

purchase consideration, then no addition is required to be made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty u/s 270A can be automatically levied for all the additions made u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. It is also relevant to consider that the value determined ... assessee didn’t opt to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer, it doesn’t make a case fit for imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 8. In view of the above facts and discussions, we are of the considered view that no penalty under Section 270A