Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

This section is now closed. Please ask your questions at our new Q&A section
Query asked by Suresh Goyal on June 4, 2021

Re: Views on Penalty u/s 270A on estimate addition – initiated penalty as mis-reporting of income.

Sir, assessee is a proprietor and claimed expenses as labour charges amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-. In the assessment order, it is mentioned vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 20.09.2019, the assessee was again asked to furnish complete details of expenses. In response to notice, the assessee furnish reply dated 05.10.2019 stating therein that labour charges are paid in cash to the paid labour and on hire basis available at the time of shipment as the assessee was an exporter for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee filed copy of the ledger account of labour charges. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order observed as under:

The assessee has not furnished the names all the persons to whom the labour charges were paid. Not complete evidence with regards to payment made by him. Explanation furnished by the assessee has been considered and not found satisfactory. In the absence of any satisfactory reply / justification of expenses claimed by the assessee, it will be fair to make a disallowance of Rs. 70,000/- out of expenses claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 70,000/- is made to the returned income of the assessee, penalty proceedings u/s 270A are also initiated for mis-reporting of income. In the assessment order, it is also mentioned initiate penalty u/s 270A for mis-reporting of income.

Now, the assessee has received show cause penalty notice u/s 270A through NEAC Centre on portal. Now the assessee wants to have your views and how to file the reply of show cause notice of the penalty.

The assessee has not mis-reported any income. The assessee filed copy of the ledger account of labour charges. The addition has been made on estimated basis. The penalty has been initiated for mis-reporting of income. The assessee has not mis-reported any income and it is not covered in section 270A(9). Clause (a) mentioned as mis-representation or suppression of facts. The assessee did not file any appeal against the addition as the amount of addition was very small and deposit the tax within a month of the order. Also filed form no.68 for claiming immunity u/s 270AA but that does not cover mis-reporting of income. As per my knowledge, it covers only under-reporting of income.

Sir, I seek your opinion on the above query. Mostly, while passing the assessment order, the assessing officer made lump sum addition on estimated basis. If such addition are treated as mis-reporting then the assessee will have to pay 200% of the penalty. It is a general query and may be facing most of our colleagues. Assessing Office has not specified any date / amount and name of person etc. for making addition. Please guide us as it is likely to come this problem in future in every case.

Thanking You,

With Regards,

CA S.K. Goyal

Ad -hoc disallowance is not legally permissible . In  Katira Construction Ltd. v. ACIT  (2020)  185 ITD 173 (Rajkot)  (Trib.) held that when the books of account is not rejected  ad-hoc addition is held to be not justified  .  Though the assessee has not filed  an appeal against the quantum addition , the assesee can  contest in penalty appeal that how the addition itself is bad  in law . Misrepresentation applies only to statement of fact and not opinions . on the facts it is the opinion of the Assessing Officer hence it is not misrepresentation .In   CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2011) 220 Taxation 278/(2010) 36 DTR 449/322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322/230 CTR 320 (SC) the Court held that merely because the assessee claimed of deduction of interest expenditure has not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted . The ratio laid down by supreme Court should apply to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act also .  

The assessee should file detailed reply how the addition it self is not justified and also make a request to drop the penalty proceedings .

 


 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*