TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 05.12.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018 19. The assessee raised the following ground of appeal: "1. The Order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income tax Department ('Ld. AO') and the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('CIT(A)') are bad in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the penalty of INR 21,30,143 levied by the Ld. AO under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the Appellant had made full and true disclosure of the impugned amount under Clause 27(b) of Form 3CD ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. POP T-Shirt expenses 1,49,625 Other expenses 5. Salaries and Wages 1,18,77,633 Employee benefit expenses Total 1,26,31,040 3. Since the assessee has not disallowed the above expenditure in the return of income and the A.O has also not considered the disallowance while completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the PCIT exercised jurisdiction u/s. 263 and issued a show cause notice to the assessee. The assessee during the course of proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act submitted that the assessee has inadvertently omitted to disallow prior period expenditure and accordingly conceded to the disallowance. The PCIT accordingly held the order u/s. 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. ITO [ITA No. 2717/Chny/2024 dated 14.02.2025]. The Ld. AR also made an alternate submission that the assessee has committed a bonafide mistake by inadvertently claiming the deduction in the return of income and therefore the same is covered under clause (a) of section 270A(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Industries P. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 987/Hyd/2024 dated 05.12.2024]. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand submitted that the disallowance is not only based on the fact that the impugned expenditure are prior period expenditure but also capital in nature. The Ld. DR further submitted that subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer to grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C of section 276CC, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely:- (a) the tax and interest payable as per the order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (b) no appeal against the order referred to in clause (a) has been filed. (3) ******* 7. A combined perusal of the above section and the facts in the present case makes it clear that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions except filing the prescribed form i.e. Form-68 before the A.O seeking immunity. We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m 68 within the prescribed period stated in subsection (2), [i.e. within one month from the end of the month in which the assessment order was received by assessee] then the AO should have granted immunity from imposition of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. At the cost of repetition, it is noted that the assessee has fulfilled both the conditions for grant of immunity as stipulated under clause (a) & (b) of sub-section (1) of section 270AA of the Act, which are substantive in nature except didn't file Form 68 before AO. Therefore, in substance assessee was entitled for claiming immunity from imposition of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. In this context, it has to be kept in mind that courts are meant to do substantial justice between the parties....