TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 412
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case relates to penalty proceedings initiated under section 270A of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2020-21 in the case of the appellant, an individual deriving salary income. Information available with the Department showed that the appellant had received salary income of about Rs. 60,82,953/- during the financial year 2019-20 and had also purchased immovable property amounting to Rs. 99,43,125/-. Despite having substantial taxable income, the appellant did not file the return of income for the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated under section 148A. In the absence of compliance, an order under section 148A(d) dated 14.02.2024 was passed holding that income of Rs. 1,60,26,078/- had escaped assessment. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariation in the returned income of the Assessee. Further, submitted that though there is no escapement of income or Revenue loss, in a mechanical manner, the order of penalty came to be passed u/s 270A of the Act, and the said penalty order has been affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Assessee had bona fide reasons for not filing the original ITR as the Assessee met with an accident on 11.02.2020 and due to the COVID-19 pandemic thereafter, the Assessee could not file the original return. The Learned Counsel has also relied on the plethora of judicial precedents and sought for allowing the Appeal. 5. Per Contra, the Ld. DR relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, thus sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 6. We have heard the parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the returned income while framing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. It is also brought to the notice of the Bench that Assessee is a regular tax payer who had voluntarily filing his income returns u/s 139(1) for the A.Ys. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 without any default or prior notice. 7. In an identical facts in the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Bangalore Benches in the case of Sekhon Jagtar Singh, Bangalore Vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore in ITA No.1104/Bang/2024, vide Order dated 21.08.2024 held as under:- "Undisputedly the income of the assessee was subject to the tax liabilities on which tax at source was duly deducted by the employer and deposited with the government exchequer on behalf of the assessee whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch of the Tribunal at Chennai Bench in the case of Santhosh Abraham Vs ITO (ITA No.: 3950/CHNY/2025), vide Order dated 12.02.2026, deleted the penalty in following manners: "Therefore, the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented from filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year due to suffering Covid19 is a bonafide explanation and covered u/s. 270A(6)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, on the facts of the instant case, we are of the view that penalty u/s. 270A of the Act is not to be imposed and we, delete the same. It isordered accordingly." (Para 11) 9. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Ishit Kamleshbhai Sheth v. ITO (ITА 753/Ahd/2025), vide order dated 25.07.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected to TDS and reflected in the tax system, and the assessee does not claim any false deduction or exemption, the possibility of tax evasion is inherently neutralised. In such cases, penal consequences are not justified in the absence of revenue loss or fraudulent intent." (Para 12) "The mere fact that the return was filed in response to notice under section 148 does not ipso facto justify the invocation of section 270A(2)(b), unless there is a demonstrable act of under-reporting in substance. The statute does not intend to penalise delayed but truthful compliance, particularly where no tax loss arises and the income is fully traceable in departmental systems." (Para 15) "In view of the above discussion and respectfully ....