Natal Mary Pedru Rodrigues Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Background and Penalty Under Section 270A
The appeal before the ITAT Mumbai arose from the appellate order dated 29.01.2026 concerning a penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had sold an immovable property for Rs. 60 lakh and that there was a difference between the PAN quoted in the return and the PAN appearing in the sale deed.
The assessee had originally filed a return on 13.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 7,17,540/- under PAN BZWPR1050F. The property transaction had been carried out using a secondary PAN, AGGPR7720N. Following a notice under Section 148, the assessee filed a return on 26.12.2024 declaring total income of Rs. 49,16,240/-, including capital gains, and paid the applicable taxes and interest.
The Assessing Officer accepted the returned income without making any addition but initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A. A penalty of Rs. 4,32,466/- was subsequently imposed and confirmed by the CIT(A), who held that there was no voluntary disclosure of income.
Assessee’s Submissions
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the second PAN had been quoted in the sale deed due to a bona fide mistake. She submitted that, after receiving the Section 148 notice, she disclosed the capital gains, paid the applicable tax and interest, and accepted the transaction details.
