TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent penalty orders passed u/s. 270A of the Act dated 12.07.2021 & 04.09.2021 for the Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. 2. Since the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical, they were clubbed together, heard conjointly, and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are culled out from ITA No. 222/Nag/2025. 3. The effective issue involved in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty of Rs. 1,79,64,198/- u/s. 270A of the Act in respect of addition of Rs. 2,48,83,196/- made by the Assessing Officer consequent to the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. Originally, the assessee had e-filed return of income for AY 2017-18 on 01.11.2017 decla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the facts and submissions of the assessee, held that assessee has revised the original return intentionally at the very last movement and reduced the total taxable income to Rs. 36,00,740/- resulting in refund of Rs. 95,53,990/- which clearly comes under the purview of section 270A(9)(a) of the Act. Finally, Ld. CIT(A) held that AO has rightly imposed penalty of Rs. 1,79,64,198/- u/s. 270A of the Act @ 200%. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The assessee, in person appeared and submitted that Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act by treating the case as one of "misreporting of income" attracting penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce; recording of false entries; or failure to record receipts in books. Learned counsel further submitted that "misrepresentation of facts" implies deliberate furnishing of false facts, whereas "suppression of facts" implies intentional concealment of material information. In the present case, all primary facts were disclosed by the assessee and the addition was made merely on account of a different interpretation adopted by the Ld. AO. He further submitted that merely because assessee did not file appeal against the assessment order cannot be construed as admission of concealment or misreporting. Non-filing of appeal may be due to commercial expediency, litigation cost, or to buy peace of mind. The penalty proceedings are separate and ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duct of the assessee clearly falls within the ambit of "misreporting of income" as envisaged under section 270A(9), particularly furnishing of inaccurate particulars and misrepresentation of taxable income. The assessee did not challenge the quantum addition before appellate authorities, thereby accepting the addition made by the Ld. AO. This clearly establishes that the claim made in the revised return was untenable. The Ld. AO has rightly recorded satisfaction regarding under-reporting and misreporting of income and levied penalty @ 200% in accordance with section 270A. The Ld. CIT(A), after appreciating the facts and legal position, rightly confirmed the penalty order. No interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircular No. 8 of 2017 dated 23.02.2017 no adverse inference can be mechanically drawn that the assessee had indulged in any contumacious conduct or had deliberately misrepresented or suppressed material facts so as to justify levy of penalty for "misreporting of income" u/s. 270A(9)(a) of the Act which carries a flavour of deliberate attempt to make a misleading claim. The claim of the assessee may not have found favour with the Assessing Officer for the purpose of assessment; however, rejection of a legal claim ipso facto does not warrant imposition of penalty, particularly when the explanation offered is bona fide and all primary and material facts necessary for adjudication of the issue were duly disclosed by the assessee. The observatio....