Penalty under section 270A fails where misreporting limb is unclear and the taxpayer's bona fide explanation stands unrebutted.

Penalty under section 270A was found unsustainable where the assessee revised the return after notice under section 148, disclosed the correct income, and paid tax with interest. The assessee was a salaried employee with limited tax knowledge and had relied on a tax consultant who prepared the return. The penalty order also failed to clearly identify the specific limb of under-reporting or misreporting under section 270A(9). In these circumstances, the explanation was accepted as bona fide, the penalty was deleted for both assessment years, and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable where the assessee's excess deduction claim was attributable to reliance on a tax consultant and the Assessing Officer did not clearly identify the specific limb of misreporting.

Analysis: The assessee's return was revised in response to notice under section 148 after the correct income was disclosed and tax with interest was paid. The record indicated that the assessee was a salaried employee with limited tax knowledge and had relied on a tax consultant who had prepared the return. The penalty order did not clearly specify the exact clause under section 270A(9) attracted by the alleged default. In these circumstances, the explanation offered by the assessee was accepted as bona fide and the penalty was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 270A was deleted for both assessment years and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under section 270A cannot be sustained unless the specific limb of under-reporting or misreporting is clearly identified and the assessee's bona fide explanation is effectively rebutted.

---