TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] pertaining to a penalty order passed u/s. 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] dated 08.09.2025 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), is contrary to the law, facts, and circumstances of the case and is based on a misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Erroneous Confirmation of Penalty u/s 270A: The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 4,32,466/-. The appellant contends that there was no intent to under-report or misreport income, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....implications of the dual PAN situation, which led to the procedural lapse rather than a substantive concealment of income. 3. In this case, the AO noticed that the assessee did not file return of income. It was found that she had sold an immovable property for Rs 60 lakh. In response to subsequent issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, she declared income of Rs 49,16,240/-.There was difference in the PAN quoted in the return and the sale deed. It was also found that she had filed original return on 13.10.2017 declaring income of Rs 7,17,540/-.On confrontation, she admitted the mistake having two PANs. The AO accepted the return without making any addition but initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and subsequently, penalty of Rs 4,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged the tax liability on the total income of Rs. 49,16,240/-. Levying a 50% penalty on a voluntary disclosure made during the assessment process is harsh and contrary to the spirit of the law. Only procedural aspect of submitting Form 68 remained, as the said Form was filed delayed on 04/04/2026. Thus, the delay in payment of taxes of two days and procedural aspect of filing Form 68 may be condoned and penalty be deleted as per immunity granted u/s 270AA of the Act, as no further appeal was filed by the assessee against the quantum order. It is stated that it was held in Punam Kumar Bhati v/s ITO(ITA No. 454/Jodh/2023):-"It is further submitted that the provisions of Income Tax Act, as provided in Sec.270AA provides for immunity from imposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. AR has also additionally submitted that in respect of the impugned assessment order, no first appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A). Section 270A of the Act contemplates penalty for under reporting and mis-reporting of income whereas Section 270AA of the Act contemplates immunity from the imposition of penalty etc. and for which two conditions must be fulfilled by virtue of Section 270AA(1) which are (1) Assessee must accept the income and pay tax and interest thereon as per the assessment order within the period specified in notice of demand. (2) No appeal is filed against the assessment order. The ld. AR therefore pleaded that in the instant case both these two conditions are satisfied by the assessee, the requisite tax with inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment 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. (2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within one month from the end of the month in which the order referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) has been received and shall be made in such form and verified in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) The Assessing Officer shall, subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-section (1) and after the expiry of the period of filing the appeal as specified in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... technical and procedural lapse only for which immunity could not be disallowed as part of substantive justice. ITA No. 2717/Chny/2024 in New Dawath Traders v/s the ITO and ITAT C Bench, Chennai in ITA Manoj Kumar Gangadharan ITA No. 670 & 671 /Ind/2024. 6.2 It is a settled proposition of law that courts are meant to do substantial justice between the parties, and that technical rules or procedure should not be given precedence over doing substantial justice. In the given factual background, according to us, delayed filing of Form 68 is only a technical or venial breach which should not take away the substantive right to claim immunity from levy of penalty, which assessee got vested with on fulfillment of substantive conditions mandated ....