TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty order passed by the assessing officer is bad-in-law, and without jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 274 of the Act issued is defective and contrary to the provisions of law and therefore, the penalty of Rs. 13,18,464/-levied by the assessing officer u/s 270A of the Act is liable to be cancelled and the penalty order is liable to be quashed and CIT(A) erred in not holding so. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in imposing penalty of Rs. 13,18,464/- u/s 270A of the Act and therefore the penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal filed by Sh. Lokesh Sachdeva (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant) challenging the imposition of penalty amounting to 213,18,464 under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer (AO), DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi, based on findings of "misreporting and underreporting of income in the appellant's assessment order dated 22.12.2019. 6.1 The AO issued a penalty order under Section 270A on 06.09.2022 after making the additions during assessment proceedings. The appellant contended that they met the requirements to claim immunity from penalty under Section 270AA but failed to file the formal application for the same. The grounds for appeal include procedural objectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. (327 ITR 510) affirm that where additions are upheld due to lack of satisfactory explanations, penalties are justified. In the current case, as the appellant has provided no substantial explanation or evidence to refute the AO's findings, the Department's contention remains unchallenged. 6.5 In light of the appellant's consistent non-compliance and lack of merit in their arguments, the penalty imposed under Section 270A by the AO is confirmed. The appellant's grounds do not warrant any relief, especially given the failure to file the necessary application for immunity under Section 270AA. This appeal is therefore dismissed based on the records and in alignment with judicial precedents affirming penalties in case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s given in clauses (a) to (g) of the sub-Section (2) or Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-Section (9) of Section 270A of the Act and, therefore, the impugned notice issued u/s. 270A being 'vague notice' and thus illegal and consequently the penalty order and the order of the CIT(A) is also liable to be deleted. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and ITAT : 1. Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd. [2022 (3) TMI 1295 -Delhi High Court] 2. Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr. 2022(6) TMI 130 Delhi High Court 3. Ujala Crdit Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi 2024 (6) TMI 600-ITAT Delhi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondents in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner." 9. Further, in this regard, we find force from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr. (supra) and the decision of coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ujala Credit Cooperative Society Ltd vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (supra). 10. The AO has....