AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 u/s 147 of the Act and no addition/disallowance was made in the order. However, it was noted by the AO that the assessee has offered an additional amount of Rs. 21,22,930/- under the head 'income from other sources' in the return of income filed against notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, levied penalty of Rs. 3,27,993/- u/s 270A of the Act being 50% of tax determined for under-reporting in consequence of misreporting. 3. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under : "4. Decision: I have considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, grounds of appeal, penalty order, written submission and the cited case laws made by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. The sole issue in this appeal is levy of penalty of Rs. 3,27,993/- u/s 270A of the Act. 4.1. The penalty of Rs. 3,27,993/- u/s 270A of the Act was levied being 50% of tax determined for underreporting of income by not disclosing the interest in IT refund. The AO has noted that the appellant has shown additional amount of Rs. 21,22,930/- in the return filed against the notice u/s 148 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al income has been increased in reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act in comparison to the income declared by the appellant in the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The appellant contended that the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act was neither processed u/s 143(1) nor scrutinized u/s 143(3) in earlier occasion. In support of this, the appellant reproduced screen shot of filing tab of e-filing portal, wherein it is seen that the appellant had filed return u/s 143(1) and 148 of the Act. However, the appellant failed to see the e-proceeding tab on e-filing portal, which is reproduced as under- From the above screen shot, it is clear that the return of income for AY 2017- 18 was scrutinized by the AO and therefore, the clause (c) of sub-section 2 of section 270A of the Act is applicable in the present case. It is also seen from the e- proceeding tab of e-filing portal that notices u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act were issued for AY 2017-18 and the appellant had furnished its written submission and various document on the e-filing portal, however, the appellant failed to disclose these material facts during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thus, the levy of penalty be quashed. 3. The computation mechanism of the penalty u/s 270A fails as there is neither intimation order passed [u/s 143(1)] nor there is assessment order passed u/s 143(3) & thus the levy of penalty be deleted. 4. The Penalty order passed by AO be quashed as the Penalty u/s 270A (9) imposed by the AO is without specifying the limb u/s 270A (a) to (f). 5. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Ground of objections at any time before or during the Course of the hearing of the case. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that penalty in the instant case has been levied on account of non-disclosure of interest on income tax refund in the original return of income. He submitted that the refund along with interest thereon was adjusted by the department against the outstanding demand of earlier years and therefore, inadvertently the interest element of the income tax refund could not be included in the total income of the assessee. Since this is a non-intentional and technical defect, penalty should not have been levied u/sec.270A of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee drew the at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), he drew the attention of the Bench to para-19 of the order which reads as under : "19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 20. We are of the opinion, given the peculiar facts of this case, that the imposition of penalty on the assessee is not justified. We are satisfied that the assessee had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30 days of receipt of the notice. In compliance thereto, the assessee had filed its ITR on 19/08/2022 declaring total income at Rs. 38,31,53,640 by enhancing the same by Rs. 1,33,22,930. Thereafter, assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.ws.144B of the Act were completed by the Faceless Assessing Officer on 11/02/2023 assessing the total income at Rs. 38,31,53,640/-. (iv) Further, under para 3.5 of the order u/s. 147 rws.144B of the Act dated 11.02.2023, it has been clearly mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s. 270A is separately initiated for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. (v) The penalty so initiated was levied u/s. 270A of the Act vide order dated 22/08/2023 by the Faceless Assessing Officer. 2. With regard to the ground taken-up by the assessee company regarding not passing of intimation Order u/s. 143(1) and assessment order, it is submitted that there seems a typographical error in para 4 (S.No.2) of the assessment order u/s. 147 r.ws.144B of the Act dated 11.02.2023 'Income as computed u/s. 143(1)(a)' which should be 'Income computed u/s 147 rws.144B of the Act. Similarly, there are two typographical mistakes i....