2024 (11) TMI 686 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 270A quashed due to failure to specify applicable limb for under-reporting income

ITAT Pune quashed penalty under section 270A for under-reporting of income related to capital gains on agricultural land sale. The Assessing Officer ... Levy of penalty u/s 270A - under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income - Mandation to mention clear charge - capital gain attracted on sale of agricultural land which is situated at rural area - HELD THAT:- We find the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kishor Digambar Patil vs. ITO[2023 (3) TMI 1472 - ITAT PUNE] while deciding an identical issue has quashed the penalty levied u/s 270A for failure of the Assessing Officer in quoting any of the six limbs as mentioned in section 270A(9) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has admittedly not mentioned as to under which limb of sub-section (9) of section 270A he has levied the penalty, we hold that the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Adequacy of notice specifying the relevant limb under Section 270A(9) for levying penalty.3. Consideration of the assessee's ignorance of law and financial circumstances as a defense against penalty.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Section 270A:The primary issue in this case was the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 6,37,912/- under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for under-reporting of income due to misreporting. The assessee, an individual, had sold an immovable property for Rs. 63,32,700/- and earned a salary income of Rs. 6,00,000/- but failed to file a return for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147 and issued a notice under Section 148, prompting the assessee to file a return declaring an income of Rs. 18,74,800/-. The AO accepted this income but initiated penalty proceedings, arguing that the assessee had under-reported income as a result of misreporting. The CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the penalty, emphasizing that the assessee had significant taxable income and failed to file a return, which would have led to untaxed income if not for the AO's notice.2. Adequacy of Notice Specifying Relevant Limb under Section 270A(9):A significant argument raised by the assessee was the inadequacy of the penalty notice issued by the AO, which failed to specify the relevant limb under Section 270A(9) for levying the penalty. The assessee's counsel argued that the penalty was not sustainable because the AO did not specify under which clause of Section 270A(9) the penalty was imposed. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, citing a precedent from the case of Kishor Digambar Patil vs. ITO, where a similar penalty was quashed due to the AO's failure to specify any of the six limbs under Section 270A(9). The Tribunal noted that specifying the relevant clause is crucial to ensure clarity and objectivity in penalty provisions, as emphasized by the CBDT's circular. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was not in accordance with law due to this procedural lapse.3. Consideration of Assessee's Ignorance of Law and Financial Circumstances:The assessee contended that the penalty should not be levied due to her ignorance of the law and financial distress following her husband's sudden demise. She argued that she was misled into believing that capital gains tax was not applicable to the sale of rural agricultural land. Despite these arguments, both the AO and CIT(A) / NFAC found them unconvincing, noting that the assessee had substantial taxable income and failed to file a return. However, the Tribunal's decision to quash the penalty was primarily based on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the assessee's defense.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the penalty order due to the AO's failure to specify the relevant limb under Section 270A(9). This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in penalty proceedings to ensure fairness and clarity. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, thereby allowing the grounds raised by the assessee.