TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 952
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 of the Act and the same was due to subsequent reporting's made by the banks/financial institutions. Infact TDS was also made on the said transactions and it was also not claimed. 3. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that no separate addition was made in the reassessment proceedings which categorically proves the bonafides of the Appellant and thus levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act is unwarranted in the case of the Appellant as per provisions of Sec. 270A(6) of the Act 4. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) erred in rejecting the Form-68 filed by the Appellant seeking immunity on the alleged ground that said form was not filed within statutory time period though all the other statutory requirement were complied for getting immunity. 5. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing Form 68, which was duly explained during the course of the Appeal Proceedings along with judicial precedents and thus Appellant is eligible for immunity specified u/s. 270AA of the Act. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged during the course of Appeal proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9(1) of the Act. Subsequently, while filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee noticed that Form No. 26AS had been revised by the deductor and, therefore, on the basis of such revised Form No. 26AS, the assessee voluntarily disclosed the higher income in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the summary of interest income as reflected in Form No. 26AS both at the time of filing the original return and at the time of filing the return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that the difference in income was attributable to interest income earned from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. The Ld. AR also invited our attention to the details of interest income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited as reflected in the original Form No. 26AS and the updated Form No. 26AS and submitted that there was difference in the amount of interest in both the Form No. 26AS. Hence, the difference of income shown by the assessee in both the returns are due to difference in both the 26AS. Therefore, the case of the assessee is squarely covered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terest income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, which was not reflected in the original Form No. 26AS available at the time of filing of the original return of income. We have carefully considered the submissions of the assessee. However, we find that the assessee has merely made a general submission that there was a difference in the interest income reflected in the original Form No. 26AS and the updated Form No. 26AS. The assessee has failed to identify the specific item of income which was allegedly missing from the original Form No. 26AS and subsequently appeared in the updated Form No. 26AS. We have gone through the interest received by the assessee from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd as per the original Form No. 26AS placed at page no. 63 of the paper book, which is to the following effect: 8. We have also gone through the interest received by the assessee from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd as per the updated Form No. 26AS placed at page no. 121 of the paper book, which is to the following effect: 9. On perusal of the above, we find that the gross amount reported by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited in both the original Form No. 26AS and the updated Form No. 26AS is Rs. 59,08,907....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the interest income disclosed in the original return of income was lower than the interest income reflected in Form No. 26AS. This clearly demonstrates that there was omission of income at the time of filing of the original return itself. Further, the assessee has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation reconciling the aforesaid difference. Even before us, no material has been brought on record to establish that the omission was caused due to any bona fide mistake or due to any subsequent revision in Form No. 26AS by the deductor. We have also gone through provisions of section 270A(6) of the Act, which is to the following effect: Section 270A (1)................ 2.................... 3................... 4..................... 5..................... (6) The under-reported income, for the purposes of this section, shall not include the following, namely:- (a) the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be, is satisfied that the explanation is bona fide and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee are dismissed. 13. Under Ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee, the assessee has raised an alternative objection, contending that the assessee was entitled to immunity under section 270AA of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was passed on 20.11.2024 and as per section 270AA(2) of the Act, Form No. 68 seeking immunity from penalty was required to be filed within one month from the end of the month in which the assessment order was passed. According to the Ld. AR, Form No. 68 ought to have been filed on or before 31.12.2024. Inviting our attention to the acknowledgement of Form No. 68 placed at page no. 164 of the paper book, the Ld. AR submitted that Form No. 68 was filed on 28.08.2025 and therefore there was delay in filing the said form. The Ld. AR submitted that except for the delay in filing Form No. 68, all other conditions prescribed under section 270AA of the Act stood satisfied by the assessee and no defect regarding compliance of any other condition had been pointed out by the lower authority. It was submitted that section 270AA of the Act does not specifically provide that delay in filing Form No. 68 would automatically result in rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm No. 68 on 28.08.2025, i.e., after the passing of the penalty order by the Ld. AO. Thus, the assessee in the present case had not filed Form No. 68 either before the passing of the penalty order under section 270A of the Act or even during the pendency of the penalty proceedings. In our considered opinion, Form No. 68 filed after the passing of the penalty order under section 270A of the Act cannot survive and is liable to be rejected. We have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. However, the same are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, Form No. 68 was not filed after the passing of the penalty order as in the present case. Therefore, the ratio laid down therein does not apply to the peculiar facts of the present case. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the action of the Lower authority in rejecting the immunity application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the assessee are dismissed. 16. Ground Nos. 1 and 6 of the appeal of the assessee are general in nature, under which no issue has been raised by the assessee before us. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 and 6 of the assessee are dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal ....