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

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)

authorSaimadateJun 28, 2026
Last update on Jun 28, 2026
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.
ITAT Invalidates Rectification Proceedings As Interest Was Already Charged Under Section 234C; AO Cannot Revise It Later
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.
ITAT Denies Section 72A Benefit Where Resulting Company Failed to Issue Shares
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.
ITAT Deletes Rs 4.13 Crore Addition, Holds Non-Disclosure of Capital in Earlier ITRs Alone Cannot Justify Addition
The Tribunal set aside the penalty order and directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed under Section 270A.

About Author

LinkedIn

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.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
209
Up Next

Loading suggestions…