Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Absence of Satisfaction: ITAT Hyderabad Quashes ₹1.58 Section 270A Penalty

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2025 taxguru.in 7976
Case Name
United Steel Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2017-2018
Advertisement


United Steel Allied Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

ITAT Hyderabad Deletes Penalty of ₹1.58 Cr. Levied u/s 270A on Excess Loss Claim – No Satisfaction, No Penalty

Background

  • Assessee engaged in iron & steel manufacturing filed return showing loss of ₹46.59 Cr.
  • AO, after assessment, determined loss at ₹32.84 Cr. and held that assessee wrongly claimed excess loss of ₹13.75 Cr. by applying indexation from FY 2008-09 for all 1.84 Cr. shares of USAI Forge Pvt. Ltd., though 34.89 lakh shares were actually purchased in FY 2013-14.
  • AO treated this as under-reporting of income and levied penalty u/s 270A @ 50% of tax sought to be evaded = ₹1.58 Cr.

First Appeal

Before CIT(A)-NFAC, assessee argued:

  • AO had not recorded satisfaction in assessment order or in notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A.
  • The error was inadvertent and corrected during assessment by filing revised computation.
  • CIT(A) rejected plea & sustained penalty, holding it was a clear case of under-reporting.

Tribunal’s Observations

Lack of Satisfaction by AO:

  • Neither assessment order nor SCN recorded satisfaction as to whether penalty was for under-reporting or misreporting.
  • Even in penalty order, AO failed to specify the limb.
  • Such non-recording makes the penalty void ab initio, supported by SC in Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd..

On Merits:

  • Assessee purchased shares in two years (2008-09 & 2013-14) but applied indexation from 2008-09 for all.
  • Assessee admitted mistake & filed revised computation during assessment; AO himself recomputed correct loss at ₹32.84 Cr.
  • Even after correction, assessee still had a loss—no reduction of taxable income.
  • Error was bonafide and covered by Sec. 270A(6)(a): when explanation is bonafide & all facts disclosed, it is not under-reporting.

Decision

  • ITAT held penalty was unsustainable both in law & on merits.
  • Set aside CIT(A) order & directed AO to delete penalty of ₹1.58 Cr. levied u/s 270A.
  • Appeal allowed in favour of Assessee.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Vijayakumar Shetty
Qualification: CA in Practice
Company: Shetty & Co, Chartered Accountants, Mangalore
Location: Mangalore, Karnataka
Articles Published: 6,104

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.