ITAT Deletes Section 270A Penalty as AO Failed to Specify Charge of Misreporting under Income Tax Act:

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore has deleted a penalty of Rs 11.02 lakh imposed under Section 270A holding that the AO failed to specify the particular clause of "misreporting of income".
Penalty Cannot Survive where AO Fails to Identify the Specific Limb under Section 270A(9)

ITAT Deletes Section 270A Penalty as AO Failed to Specify Charge of Misreporting under Income Tax Act
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore, has held that ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS, by themselves, do not establish misreporting warranting penalty.
The assessee is engaged in the wholesale trade of rice, pulses and other commodities and filed his return declaring an income of Rs 68.76 lakh. During scrutiny assessment, the AO disallowed 80% of certain loading and unloading expenses on the ground that the assessee failed to produce Aadhaar details and other supporting documents of the labourers. Later, 30% of transportation expenses were disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The total disallowance amounted to Rs 16.05 lakh. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A and imposed a penalty of Rs 11.02 lakh by treating the additions as "misreporting of income".
The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) upheld the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the penalty order merely referred to "misreporting" without identifying the relevant clause under Section 270A(9). It further held that an estimated disallowance of labour expenses due to lack of supporting documents and a disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS do not, by themselves, establish misreporting of income. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had particularly opted not to receive appellate notices through email. Despite this, notices were issued only through email, which failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A).
The tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the penalty. It observed that Section 270A(9) contains different categories of misreporting, and before imposing a penalty at the increased rate, the AO must clearly identify the specific clause applied and give reasons in writing to prove how the assessee's conduct falls within that clause.
The Tribunal set aside the penalty order and directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed under Section 270A.
About Author

Saima
Content Writer
Saima is a Law graduate with a passion for research and content writing. She writes for Finance, Taxation and Legal Updates at Studycafe.in, simplifying complex legal decisions by the ITAT, High Court, AAR and GSTAT into uncomplicated and clear explanations.
Saima is a Law graduate with a passion for research and content writing. She writes for Finance, Taxation and Legal Updates at Studycafe.in, simplifying complex legal decisions by the ITAT, High Court, AAR and GSTAT into uncomplicated and clear explanations.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
209My Recent Articles
- High Court Rules Reopening Beyond Four Years Invalid Where Assessee Fully Disclosed Material FactsPremium
- ITAT Rules That Mere Banking Channel Payment and Donation Receipt Cannot Establish GenuinenessPremium
- High Court Upholds Agricultural Science Degree Requirement for Registration as Agricultural Land ValuerPremium
- ITAT Rules That Mere Banking Channel Payment Does Not Prove Genuine Political Donation Under Section 80GGCPremium
- ITAT Holds Borrowings Accepted in Earlier Year Cannot Be Reopened Without Change in FactsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








