2023 (9) TMI 218 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty for misrepresentation of fact u/s 270A(1) r.w.s. 270(9)(a) - assessee submits that instead of contesting the additions made in the assessment order, the assessee filed an application for seeking immunity from penalty and filed application u/s 270AA before assessing officer and penalty was levied by other assessing officer, without taking the fact in the consideration that the application of assessee was not rejected thus, the action of levying penalty is not justified - CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by taking view that application for seeking immunity was filed belatedly and no provision under which the assessing officer could condoned the delay. HELD THAT - We find that the finding of assessing officer and CIT(A) are on different footing. Though, we are in agreement with the submissions of ld Sr DR for the revenue that if the penalty was initiated for misreporting of income, the assessee was not eligible for immunity u/s 270AA. Yet, we find that the assessee during the assessment filed revised computation of income, and included entire income from house property in its income and such revised computation was accepted by assessing officer, in such circumstances, at the best it could be a case of under reporting of the income. AO made disallowance of interest expenses on the basis of the details furnished by the assessee only. However, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, the underreporting allegedly done by the assessee cannot amount to misreporting as the assessee had furnished all the details of deductions claimed under different heads of income. We find that in Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP case 2022 (6) TMI 130 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that where penalty was levied on assessee under section 270A alleging misreporting of income, however, fact that assessee had furnished all details of transactions relating to disallowance made and Ao as well as assessee had used same details to arrive at different quantum of disallowances, this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' and further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted, impugned penalty order was to be quashed and revenue was to be directed to grant immunity under section 270AA. Thus, we do not find any justification of penalty on account of misreporting, the disallowance of interest expense was for the reason that it was claimed under wrong head and the assessee ultimately offered entire rental income in the hand of assessee. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the confirmation of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 270A for alleged misreporting of income, and the application for seeking immunity under Section 270AA.

Issue 1: Penalty under Section 270A for Misreporting of Income

The assessee, an HUF, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 showing business income, income from house property, and income from other sources. During assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed certain deductions related to interest expenses on borrowed capital. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A(1) r.w.s. 270(9)(a) for misrepresentation of facts and figures. The assessee filed an application for immunity under Section 270AA, but the assessing officer levied a penalty of Rs. 96,404 under Section 270A. The appeal before NFAC was dismissed, citing a delay in filing the immunity application. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had furnished all details, leading to a case of underreporting rather than misreporting.

Issue 2: Application for Immunity under Section 270AA

The assessee submitted an application for immunity under Section 270AA, fulfilling the conditions by paying due tax and interest. However, the jurisdictional assessing officer did not communicate the outcome of the application. The assessing officer proceeded to levy the penalty under Section 270A, stating that immunity cannot be availed for misreporting income. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, citing a belated filing of the immunity application. The Tribunal, considering the facts and the Delhi High Court's precedent, found that the disallowance of interest expenses did not amount to misreporting, and the penalty was not justified. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that the penalty under Section 270A for misreporting income was not justified, as the assessee had provided all necessary details. The Tribunal also found that the immunity application under Section 270AA was not rejected, and the penalty was set aside.