Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
In the appeals filed by Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal for Assessment Year 2017-18, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, examined the legitimacy of penalties levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The penalties, amounting to ₹2,02,118 and ₹11,16,390 respectively, were imposed for alleged under-reporting of income attributed to misreporting. The core issue raised by the assessee was the procedural deficiency in the penalty orders—specifically, the Assessing Officer (AO) had not specified which of the six limbs under Section 270A(9)(a) to (f) were applicable. This procedural lapse, according to the assessee, rendered the penalty proceedings invalid.
The Revenue, relying on the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, argued that the assessee did not demonstrate prejudice caused by the AO’s omission and that the matter could not be challenged at this stage. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this position. Citing its own earlier decision in Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi vs. ITO and the Supreme Court ruling in NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, it affirmed its jurisdiction to entertain such legal issues even if raised for the first time. ITAT emphasized that in absence of specific mention of the clause under Section 270A(9), the penalty proceedings are flawed. This view aligns with precedents like Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. vs. ACIT and Md. Farhan vs. ACIT, where similar penalties were quashed due to lack of specificity and procedural adherence.
