TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act'] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 02/08/2021, passed under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : "A. The orders of the lower authorities in so far as they are against the appellant are highly unjust, perverse and against the facts and circumstances of the case. B. The penalty under section 270A is not legally sustainable since the ingredients thereunder are not satisfied and hence, requires to be set aside. C. The penalty under section 270A cannot be levied merely because the appellant has claimed an exemption in the returns which is unacceptable to the revenue. To this extent, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E. Where the appellant has withdrawn the claim during the course of the assessment proceedings, the penalty under section 270A is not invokable. The appellant relies on decision of ITAT Surat in Vijaysinh P Solanki Versus The DCIT Circle-1 (3), Surat And Mayur Mathurdas Patel Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3) (7), Surat No. ITA No.697 & 698/SRT/2018 to buttress this contention. F. The levy of penalty at 200% of tax as mis-reporting of income is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, since there was no allegation of misreporting in the notice under section 270A. It is a settled law that an order cannot travel beyond the allegations in the show cause notice. Reliance is placed on decision of ITAT Chennai in P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had claimed deduction under 10(10AA) of the Act on the Bonafide belief that since she was working in Telecom Department before its corporatization into PSU. In Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panvel, Mumbai ITA No. 1388/PUN/2023, ITAT Pune has set aside the penalty levied under section 270A where the appellant had claimed excess exemption under section 10(10) under a Bonafide belief. H. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the following cases have held: i. That for imposition of penalty, mens rea is a necessary constituent CCE Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 481 (SC). ii. That penalty not imposable when mens rea absent- CCE Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd. 2010(260) ELT 481(SC). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or delete any grounds in this appeal." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a retired as employee of Kerala State Finance Co-operation during the Financial Year 2017-18 relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee filed return of income on 06/08/2018 claiming exemption of INR.10,00,000/- under Section 10(10) of the Act in respect of gratuity received on retirement. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return claiming a higher exemption of INR.20,00,000/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the increase exemption of INR.20,00,000/- under Section 10(10) of the Act was applicable only in case of retirement on/after 29/03/2018. Since, the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not correct, the Assessee accepted the assessment made, paid the tax on addition/disallowance made and did not prefer appeal against the quantum addition made. It was contended that there was no misreporting by the Assessee. Without prejudice, in the present case it can only be alleged that there was underreporting of income by the Assessee. Since the Assessee had accepted the addition and paid the demand, the Assessee was entitled to benefit of immunity in terms of Section 270AA of the Act. 6. Per contra the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the claim of exemption of INR.20,00,000/- made by the Assessee in respect of gratuity benefits was clearly contrary to the applicable provision. The Ld. Departmental Representative r....