9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 590 - AT - Income TaxLevying penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) - under reporting of income inconsequence of misrepresentation of facts - HELD THAT - Penalty levied @ 200% on the suppressed tax by the Ld. AO under section 270A of the Act is deleted as CIT(A) has deleted part of the penalty relating to section 80C of the Act and thus there is no misreporting/under reporting on both the additions made by the Ld. AO. The appellant is a salaried employee and there is a bonafide mistake on his part as he relied on the advice of his tax representative who filed a revised return based on the figures appearing on Income Tax Portal of TDS Traces. Taking a lenient view that (i) it is a bonafide mistake (ii) as he relied on the figures of Income Tax TDS Portal (iii) followed the advice of tax representative (iv) payment of full taxes was done the penalty levied by the Ld. AO is deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment revolve around the validity of the penalty levied under section 270A of the Income Tax Act for underreporting of income. The primary issues are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 270A of the Income Tax Act deals with the penalty for underreporting and misreporting of income. The provision outlines specific instances where such penalties can be levied, including discrepancies between reported income and income assessed by the authorities. The appellant's argument relied on the precedent set in the case of Saltwater Studio LLP Vs. NFAC, which emphasized the necessity for the assessing officer to establish how a case falls within the ambit of section 270A(9). Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the appellant's actions amounted to underreporting or misreporting of income. The appellant argued that the discrepancy arose from a bona fide mistake, as the figures were derived from the TDS Traces portal and based on the advice of a tax representative. The Tribunal considered these factors and the appellant's subsequent actions, including the payment of taxes on the additional income once the discrepancy was identified. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the appellant initially filed a return of income admitting an income of Rs. 41,79,070/-, which was later revised to Rs. 36,72,974/- based on the TDS Traces portal. The discrepancy of Rs. 6,56,096/- was identified by the assessing officer, leading to the penalty under section 270A. The Tribunal found that the appellant had paid the taxes on the additional income once it was brought to their attention, indicating a lack of intent to underreport income. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal framework of section 270A to the facts of the case. It considered the appellant's reliance on official figures from the TDS Traces portal and the advice of a tax representative as mitigating factors. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's actions did not constitute intentional underreporting or misreporting of income. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the penalty was justified due to the discrepancy in reported income. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had acted in good faith, relying on official sources and professional advice. The Tribunal gave weight to the appellant's immediate corrective actions and the partial relief already granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the section 80C deduction. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 270A was not warranted in this case, as the appellant's actions were based on a bona fide mistake and not intentional underreporting or misreporting of income. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
Preserved Quotes: "Taking a lenient view that (i) it is a bona fide mistake (ii) as he relied on the figures of Income Tax TDS Portal, (iii) followed the advice of tax representative (iv) payment of full taxes was done, the penalty levied by the Ld. AO is deleted." The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of intent and good faith in cases of alleged underreporting of income, providing a precedent for similar cases where taxpayers rely on official sources and professional advice.
|
