https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451295 ITAT Jodhpur allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty u/s 270A for misreporting income. The tribunal held that disallowances under sections 40A(3) and 32 did not constitute misreporting of income. The assessee's inadvertent claim of full-year depreciation instead of half-year depreciation lacked mens rea required for misreporting. The tribunal noted that penalty proceedings differ from assessment proceedings, and mere additions cannot automatically lead to concealment penalties. Although the assessee failed to timely file Form 68 after depositing demand within 30 days, the tribunal treated this as a procedural lapse, not substantive failure, and directed deletion of the penalty. en-us Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451295 ITAT Jodhpur allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty u/s 270A for misreporting income. The tribunal held that disallowances under sections 40A(3) and 32 did not constitute misreporting of income. The assessee's inadvertent claim of full-year depreciation instead of half-year depreciation lacked mens rea required for misreporting. The tribunal noted that penalty proceedings differ from assessment proceedings, and mere additions cannot automatically lead to concealment penalties. Although the assessee failed to timely file Form 68 after depositing demand within 30 days, the tribunal treated this as a procedural lapse, not substantive failure, and directed deletion of the penalty. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451295