TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1889
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 93,80,160/- levied by the AO u/s 270A of the Act. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has ignored the fact that in case the assessee's case was not selected for scrutiny, the excess expenditure claimed by it remain unverified and assessee has not paid the due taxes. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the fact that the assessee's case is covered under sub section 9 of section 270A of the Act. 4. The appellant craves to add and alter any fresh grounds (s) of appeal and or delete or amend any grounds of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O. and submitted that the assessee has misreported the income and penalty was rightly imposed by the A.O. 6. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that loss included claim for weighed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act which was pruned by the DSIR. The difference between the claim made by the assessee and allowed in the assessment as per the DSIR mandate, the assessment Unit penalized the assessee u/s 270A of the Act by way of imposing penalty of Rs 93,80,160/- being 200% of tax payable for mis-reporting of income. He also submitted that assessee has not mis-reporting the income. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has rightly deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. Reliance has placed on the following decisions: (i) M/S Pranav Vikas India Pvt. Ltd v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payable stating that the assessee mis-reported its income. It is noted that the assessee has sought approval of the very same amount towards R&D expenditure in the application filed before the DSIR. Only in the course of assessment proceedings when the AO was making enquiry with regard to assessee's claim, assessee received the approval of DSIR in Form No. 3CL dated 05.12.2019 disallowing a part of the expenditure. Thus, only after receiving the approval of the DSIR the assessee could come to know that part of the expenditure has not been approved. Accordingly, it revised the claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act before the AO vide its mail dated 20.12.2019 during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id discussions, in our view, the penalty in dispute deserves to be deleted. Hence, we hold and direct accordingly." (ii) [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38 (Delhi) Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. National Faceless Assessment Centre. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held: "HEAD NOTE" "Section 270AA, read with sections 270A and 14A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Penalty - Immunity from imposition of (Misreporting of income) Assessment year 2018-19 By way of impugned order, penalty was levied on assessee under section 270A alleging misreporting of income Assessee challenged impugned order and also sought a direction to revenue to grant immunity under section 270AA It was found that only addition in assessment was in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellant, along with case laws relied upon by it, seen in light of the facts of the case, goes to show that the addition on the basis of which the instant penalty has been levied, was beyond the control of the appellant. Appellant was constrained to rely upon the tax auditor's report to claim it's expense. Keeping the same in mind, in view of provisions of section 270A(6) of the Act and considering the ratio in the judgments relied upon by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to delete the penalty levied by the AO." 8. In the instant case the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act by the AO. It is noted that the dispute arises only with regard to the quantum of deduction claimed on account of part disallowance of expenditure b....