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

Section 270A Penalty Deleted on Bona Fide Non-Filing Explanation: ITAT Jaipur

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 13882
Case Name
Abhishubham Bahadur Saxena Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Appeal Number
Premium Access
Date of Judgement/Order
Premium Access
Related Assessment Year
2018-19
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

Abhishubham Bahadur Saxena Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

Summary: ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2018-19 and directed deletion of penalty of Rs.8,29,034/- levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had not originally filed his return under section 139. Based on departmental information showing salary income of Rs.26,05,964/-, proceedings were reopened under section 148. In response, the assessee filed his return declaring total income of Rs.20,49,700/-, which was accepted without variation in the reassessment. The AO nevertheless treated the income as underreported under section 270A(2)(b) and as misreporting through misrepresentation or suppression of facts under section 270A(9)(a).

Before examining the merits, the Tribunal dealt with a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. The assessee explained that his PAN reflected Kanpur jurisdiction instead of Jaipur because of an outdated address. He had applied for correction of PAN particulars and transfer of jurisdiction, deposited the appeal fee within limitation and followed up with the Department. Relying upon Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal held that sufficient cause should receive liberal construction to advance substantial justice and condoned the delay.

On merits, the Tribunal noted that the statutory conditions for underreporting were otherwise attracted because the assessee had disclosed his income for the first time in the return filed in response to notice under section 148. It also recorded that the assessee had not demonstrated any infirmity in the lower authorities’ interpretation that suppression of facts brought the case within section 270A(9)(a). However, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the important exclusion contained in section 270A(6)(a), under which income otherwise qualifying as underreported income is excluded where the assessee furnishes a bona fide explanation and discloses all material facts substantiating it.

Want to Read the Complete Judgment?

You have read the free case summary. Unlock the full judgment, the detailed judicial reasoning and the downloadable PDF, along with every other premium judgment on TaxGuru.

Read on with Premium
Goes straight to payment. GST invoice included.

One subscription covers the entire premium judgment library, not just this case.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: Graduate, CA in Job / Business, DD
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 24,060

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