ITAT Restricted Penalty to 50% as AO Nowhere Stated That Clause (8) of Sec. 270A Was Applicable
- Blog|News|Income Tax|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 31 August, 2024
Case Details: Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. DOIT - [2024] 163 taxmann.com 1022 (Delhi-Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Kul Bharat, Judicial Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member
- Shivam Garg, Adv. & Rahul Aggarwal, CA for the Appellant.
- Om Parkash, Sr.DR for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
For the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed his return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under section 143(3), enhancing the assessee’s total income. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A.
While initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A, the AO issued a notice calling upon the assessee to explain the under-reporting of income and why the penalty proceedings under section 270A could not be imposed for under-reporting his income. Considering the reply filed by the assessee, AO imposed the impugned penalty at 200% under section 270A.
On appeal, the CIT(A) sustained the penalty and the matter reached before the Delhi Tribunal.
ITAT Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee contended that the AO stated about under-reporting income throughout the notice for imposing the penalty and also in the impugned order. But while imposing the penalty, he invoked the provision related to the misreporting of income.
The AO issued a notice invoking the provision of section 270A. From the notice, it was clear that the assessee was called upon to explain the under-reporting of income. However, while imposing the penalty under section 270A, the AO imposed a penalty at the rate of 200%, which falls under clause (8) of section 270A.
Since it was the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had under-reported his income and the Assessing Officer nowhere states that clause (8) of section 270A was applicable, the AO ought to have restricted the penalty to the extent of 50%, which was leviable for under-reporting of the income.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. CIT/NFAC, Delhi (Para 10) followed.
List of Cases Referred to
- Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. CIT/NFAC, Delhi [2023] 152 taxmann.com 382 (para 6).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied