9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). However, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kalpatta (hereinafter called "the AO") formed an opinion that come escaped assessment to tax based on the information that cash of Rs. 18,08,000/- was seized from the appellant on 07.03.2018 by the police during vehicle checking and the same was handed over to the Income Tax Department. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response to the notice the appellant had filed return of income on 03.09.2022 disclosing income of Rs. 18,08,000/-. 3. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the AO accepting the returned income. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act by holding that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income. It is further submitted that the AO was not justified in rejecting the application u/s. 270AA of the Act, inasmuch as, the necessary conditions were complied with. 7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities submitting that no interference is required. 8. I heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not filed original return of income. The appellant filed the return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act disclosing income of Rs. 18,08,000/-. The return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant is guilty of misreporting of income. It is the settled position of law that when penalty proceedings were initiated invoking one limb of section 270A, penalty cannot be levied under another limb of this section. Reliance on this is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC [2022] 142 taxmann.com 38 (Delhi) wherein it was held as under: "Where penalty was levied on assessee u/s. 270A alleging misreporting of income, however, fact that assessee had furnished all details of transactions relating to disallowance made u/s. 14A and Assessing Officer as well as assessee had used same details to arrive at different quantum of disallowances, this by no stretch of imag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
