https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83783 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the penalty u/s 270A for under-reporting of income was not justified. The assessee had offered an additional amount under the head 'income from other sources' in the return filed in response to a notice u/s 148. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee did not fall under any of the circumstances specified in Section 270A(2) for considering income as under-reported. The non-disclosure of interest on income tax refunds was an inadvertent and bona fide error, which does not attract penalty as per the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. case. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 Mon, 09 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83783 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the penalty u/s 270A for under-reporting of income was not justified. The assessee had offered an additional amount under the head 'income from other sources' in the return filed in response to a notice u/s 148. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee did not fall under any of the circumstances specified in Section 270A(2) for considering income as under-reported. The non-disclosure of interest on income tax refunds was an inadvertent and bona fide error, which does not attract penalty as per the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. case. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A. Highlights Income Tax Mon, 09 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83783