TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the reasons and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed return on 11.05.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 18,74,800/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer accepted the income returned of Rs. 18,74,800/-. However, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income. 4. During the course of such penalty proceedings the assessee filed a detailed reply submitting that the penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs. 6,37,912/- being 200% of the tax sought to be evaded by observing as under: "4.1 The above reply filed by the assessee has been perused and examined. The assessee has submitted copy of death certificate of her husband issued in the year 2016. The assessee submitted that 'assessee was not knowing the provisions under the law she w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consequence of misreporting. 3,18,956 Penalty on 'under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting (200% of the tax) 6,37,912 5. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: "6.5 I have considered the submission of the appellant in view of the facts described by the Id. AO in the penalty order and the case laws referred to by him. The appellant's plea that she was not aware of the provision of the income tax cannot be accepted as it is matter of fact that she had taxable salary income more than 6 lakh apart from capital gain on sale of urban agricultural land. TDS must have been made u/s 1941A by the buyer of the property sold by the appellant. In such circumstances the above submission of the appellant is not convincing The contention that the appellant has suo moto declared her taxable income in the return filed by her in response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148 of the Act also cannot rescue the appellant from levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. This is matter of fact that the appellant had substantial taxable income during the year under reference still she did not file her return of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2016 for which she got stuck in financial crisis, for which the land was sold. Since the return of income has already been accepted by the department and no addition has been made, therefore, no penalty u/s 270A of the Act is leviable. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that had there been no notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee would not have filed her return of income declaring income of Rs. 18,74,800/-. Since the assessee has accepted such return of income and has not filed any appeal and since such return was filed due to issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A)/ NFAC is fully justified. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. We find the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on a total income of Rs. 18,74,800/- which was the income returned by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 270A introduced by the legislature by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. 5. Mr. Murkunde on the other hand strongly supported the learned lower authorities action imposing the impugned penalties. He took us to the Assessing Officer's corresponding assessments, penalty orders as well as the lower appellate discussion extracted in the preceding paragraphs that the rigor of sub-section (9) stands duly complied with once it has been categorically concluded that this is a fit case to impose penalty u/sec.270A of the Act for "under reporting which is in consequence of misreporting of income". His further contention is that such a penalty @ 200% is levied u/sec.270A(8) of the Act reading as under : "Sec.270A(8) - Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on underreported income." 5.1. Mr. Murkunde lastly sought to buttress the point that section 270A(8) nowhere makes it mandatory to include any of the clause "(a) to (f)" provided in sub-section (9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra) making it explicitly clear that these six clauses (a to f) would indeed form part of sub-section (8) to sec.270A as under : "62.10 The rate of penalty shall be fifty per cent of the tax payable on under-reported income. However in a case where under reporting of income results from misreporting of income by the assessee, the person shall be liable for penalty at the rate of two hundred per cent of the tax payable on such misreported income. The cases of misreporting of income have been specified as under : (i) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (ii) non-recording of investments in books of account; (iii) claiming of expenditure not substantiated by evidence; (iv) recording of false entry in books of account; (iv) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; (vi) failure to report any international transaction or deemed international transaction under Chapter X of the Income tax Act." 6.2. Faced with the situation and in light of overwhelming material strongly supporting the assessee's case and going by stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. Dilipkumar And Co. & Ors. 2018 (9) SCC....