9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1390 - AT - Income TaxLevy penalty u/s 270A(9) - Mis reporting of income - as alleged non specification of clear charge - HELD THAT - AO has discussed how the assessee has mis-reported the income. AO has not identified the specific limb of section 270A(9) of the Act either in the penalty order or in the assessment order which is applicable in the case of assessee. We find that ITAT Pune in the case of Kishor Digambar Patil 2023 (3) TMI 1472 - ITAT PUNE has held that failure on the part of the AO to showcase which of the specific action of the assessee from Clause(a-f) of section 270A(9) was determinant before imposing the impugned penalty u/s 270A of the Act has rendered the entire proceedings invalid and untenable. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals against penalty orders u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19. The main issues include alleged inaccurate reporting of income by the assessee and the imposition of penalty without proper justification. A.Y. 2017-18: The assessee filed revised returns showing varying total incomes, including a claim for deduction under "Income from House Property." The Income Tax Department initiated proceedings after a survey revealed fraudulent activities by a tax practitioner. The AO accepted the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 without making any additions but imposed a penalty u/s 270A. The assessee contended that since the AO accepted the return, there was no misreporting. The tribunal found that the AO failed to specify how the income was misreported, as required by section 270A(9) of the Act. Citing relevant case law, the tribunal held that without identifying specific clauses from section 270A(9), the penalty could not be sustained. Consequently, the penalty was directed to be deleted, and the appeal was allowed. A.Y. 2018-19: The facts for A.Y. 2018-19 mirrored those of A.Y. 2017-18. Following the decision on the first appeal, the tribunal applied the same reasoning to this case. As the AO did not identify the specific clauses from section 270A(9) in this assessment as well, the penalty was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed. In conclusion, both appeals by the assessee were allowed by the tribunal, directing the deletion of the penalties imposed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
