TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egal and uncalled for on facts and in law. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not keeping the penalty appeal in abeyance since the additions on which penalty was imposed were disputed in appeal before ITAT, which was pending for hearing. Moreover, the penalty order passed by Ld. AO on 11.03.2025, after more than 11 months from the reply dated 22.05.2024 filed by the appellant, for keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance. The action of passing the order by both the lower authorities, without giving any further opportunity of hearing is unjustified, arbitrary and is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. As such the order passed may be quashed. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not appreciating that the appellant had pleaded that no specific limb out of the 7 limbs mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 270A was specified or 6 limbs mentioned in sub-section (9) of section 270A was specified. As such the penalty order is liable to be quashed since the penalty was initiated u/s 270A in the aforesaid assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 1448 dated 29.09.2022, without recording any satisfaction during the course of assessment in respect of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tripping activity adjustment is unjustified, illegal and be deleted. 6. For that Ld. AO was incorrect in charging tax on the alleged under-reported income of Rs. 58,07,20,000/- @ of 30 percent instead of @ 22% applicable upon the appellant for the year under consideration and accordingly calculating surcharge and HE Cess at the higher amount of tax. As such Ld. AO be directed to revise the calculation at the rate of 22. percent on the alleged under reported income, if any. 7. For that appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any ground(s) or adduce evidences, if any, before or at the time of hearing." The revenue, on the other hand, in its appeal, has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. For that the learned CIT(A) erred in facts as well as in law by deleting the well-reasoned penalty order passed by the assessing officer based on thorough consideration of the materials on record in course of the penalty proceedings; 2. For that the learned CIT(A) failed to consider that in matters of penalty. substance of the matter is to be taken into consideration rather than the form of the notices/ orders, more so when the facts and circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. CIT(A) vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060242869(1) dated 30/01/2024, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained rest of the additions. 4. Consequent upon the disposal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee as to why the penalty under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income should not be imposed in respect of the addition/disallowance confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee-company, instead of filing any explanation, requested the Assessing Officer to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance on the ground that the assessee-company has filed appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the quantum additions sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The Assessing Officer rejected the request of the assessee on the ground that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act which prevented the Assessing Officer from imposing penalty under Section 270A of the Act even if the assessee is in appeal. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, imposed a penalty of Rs. 58,07,20,000/- under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting the particulars of income by not offeri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Income-tax [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi) [28-03-2022]-Copy attached at Page-10-12. Para 6. Having perused the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022, this Court is of the view that the Respondents' action of denying the benefit of immunity on the ground that the penalty was initiated under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting of income is not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason as in the penalty notice the Respondents have failed to specify the limb - "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated. Para 7. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word "misreporting" by the Respondents in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary. * Manish Manohardas Asrani vs. INT Tax Ward 1(1)(1) [2025] 170 taxmann.com 792 (Mumbai - Trib.) [15-10-2024]-Copy attached at Page - 13 -19 ....