Penalty under section 270A quashed for unspecified limb and lack of s.270A(9) satisfaction; misreporting not found

ITAT, Mumbai quashed imposition of penalty under section 270A for "misreporting" because the penalty notice failed to specify which limb (under-reporting or misreporting) was invoked and did not demonstrate satisfaction of s.270A(9) - rendering the order arbitrary. The tribunal found no misreporting by the assessee and held the 43CA addition unsustainable on precedent, but noted quantum was not under challenge in this appeal. The assessee's grounds on the penalty were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and legality of the penalty order.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Justification for the imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act.
4. Liberty to amend grounds of appeal.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Jurisdiction and Legality of the Penalty Order:
The appellant contended that the penalty order was "bad in law and without jurisdiction" as it was not framed according to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed without waiting for the outcome of the quantum appeal, which is against the established practice. The undue haste by the Assessing Officer (AO) was deemed unwarranted.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) did not provide a "proper, sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard," thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the appellate order was framed without application of mind to the facts and submissions brought on record by the appellant and without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.

3. Justification for the Imposition of Penalty under Section 270A:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 270A and noted that the penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income was not justified in this case. The Tribunal observed that the additions were made under sections 43CA and 56(2)(x), which are deeming provisions. It was concluded that in cases where deeming provisions apply, neither concealment of income nor under-reporting of income can be established against the assessee. The Tribunal also highlighted that the penalty notice failed to specify the limb ("underreporting" or "misreporting") under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, making the order arbitrary. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including decisions from coordinate benches, to support the view that penalties based on estimated values or deemed provisions are not sustainable.

4. Liberty to Amend Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant sought liberty to add, alter, delete, or modify the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, concluding that no penalty could be imposed as there was no misreporting by the assessee for the purposes of section 270A.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty imposed under section 270A was deemed unsustainable. The order was pronounced in the open court on June 12, 2023.

---