Krunal Sanghvi Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
Computation Error Isn’t Misreporting – ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes Penalty u/s 270A for 54F Deduction Difference
Assessee filed appeal against levy of penalty u/s 270A(9) for alleged misreporting of income arising from excess claim of deduction u/s 54F. AO held that Assessee wrongly claimed full exemption of ₹1.17 crore instead of proportionate deduction of ₹91.60 lakh & imposed penalty for misreporting. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the penalty.
Before ITAT, Assessee argued that all particulars were fully disclosed & the issue was one of interpretation & computation, not suppression or misrepresentation. The delay of 338 days in filing appeal was also explained as due to change of consultant & was condoned by Tribunal.
ITAT held that the case did not fall under any of the six clauses of Section 270A(9) which define misreporting (such as misrepresentation, false entries, or unrecorded receipts). Assessee had correctly disclosed all facts, & the difference arose only from computation of proportionate deduction u/s 54F. Therefore, penalty for misreporting could not be sustained.
Held: Penalty u/s 270A(9) deleted; appeal allowed after condoning delay of 338 days. Assessee’s appeal allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”), Delhi dated 24.04.2024 confirming the levy of penalty for mis-reporting of income as a consequence of under reporting of income in terms of provisions of Section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.
