9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 1,35,268/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that before the CIT, the assesses had duly explained that reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesses and therefore, the raised penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onse to the notice under section 148 assessee filed electronically Return dated 06.03.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 7,65,910/-. In this said Return filed in response to notice under section 148, assessee has not claimed any interest payment under the head "Income from House Property". The AO accepted the Return of Income filed in response to notice under section 148 without making any addition, accordingly, the AO passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. However, AO issued penalty notice under section 270A of the Act. The AO levied penalty under section 270A of the Act vide order dated 19.01.2022. In the penalty order, it is mentioned that assessee has under reported his income which in consequence of mis-reporting. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icable in the case of assessee. We find that ITAT Pune in the case of Kishor Digambar Patil(supra) 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 under section 270A of the Act has rendered the entire proceedings invalid and untenable. Similarly, ITAT Mumbai in the case of Saltwater Studio LLP(supra) has held as under: "The question is whether the AO's action to levy penalty u/s 270A(9) of the Act is sustainable in the given facts of the case. In order to examine that let us have a look at relevant provisions of Section 270(8) &(9) of the Act which reads as under: - "Penalty for under-reporting an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee's case/additions falls within the ken of instances given in clause (a) to (f) of sub-section (9) of section 270A of the Act. Since AO failed to bring the addition/disallowance he made in quantum assessment, under the ken of (a) to (f) of the sub-section(9) of section 270A of the Act, the penalty levied for misreporting @ 200% cannot be sustained because it is trite law that penalty provisions have to be strictly interpreted. And therefore, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the levy of penalty by the AO u/s 270A of the Act suffers from the vice of nonapplication of mind as well as violates principles of natural justice. And therefore, the penalty levied on addition of sustained quant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
