EXIM TRAC,MUMBAI V. MUM-C-(431)(91), MUMBAI

ITA 8948/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Exim Trac, a partnership firm engaged in exporting general merchandise, which claimed a deduction under Section 80GGC for a donation to the 'Apna Desh Party'. This claim was later found to be part of a bogus donation racket. Initially, the assessee maintained the genuineness of the claim, but after the department's investigation and confrontation with evidence, the assessee withdrew the claim and accepted the income for tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a 200% penalty for misreporting under Section 270A, which was upheld by the CIT(A) and contested in this appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848961 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT Vs Anuj Prakash Gupta ITA No. 11/RPR/2026 dated 05.02.2026, Shri Deepak Mittal Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), ITA No. 393/Vizag/2014, PCIT Vs. Gragerious Projects Pvt Ltd in (2025) 475 ITR 546 (Delhi), Kaemaveer Singh Vs. ITO 25(1), Delhi ITA 4673/Del/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: V P KOTHARI
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & SHRI SANDEEP KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 8948/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Exim Trac Shop No. 03, Laxmi CHSL, Off MG Road, No. 4 Behind Patel Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400067. PAN – AAAFE7436J Vs. ACIT, CC – (431)(91) Kautilya Bhavan, BKC Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri VP Kothari Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 27/03/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019-20 in relation to penalty levied u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The sole ground raised by the assessee is reproduced herein below: Printed from counselvise.com 1. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of 200% being Rs. 62,400/- u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Briefly stated, the Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the export of general merchandise. For the relevant AY 2019 Assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2019, declaring a total income of ₹50,05,950/ was claimed under Section 80GGC on account of a donation purportedly made to a political party, namely 'Apna Desh Party'. 2.1 The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. of the return, information was received following a search operation conducted on the said political party. The investigation revealed a systematic \"accommodation entry\" racket wherein the party provided bogus donation receipts in exchange for commission (ranging from 3% to 5%), returning the donation amount to the donors in cash. 2.2 Consequently, proceedings under Section 148A were initiated. Despite being confronted with specific evidence sworn statement of the President of the Apna Desh Party admitting to providing bogus entries genuineness of the claim during the Section 148A(b) proceedings. However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the Assessee filed a return of income withdrawing the said claim and ITA Nos. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of 200% being u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. iefly stated, the Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the export of general merchandise. For the relevant AY 2019 Assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2019, declaring a total 50,05,950/-. In this return, a deduction of was claimed under Section 80GGC on account of a donation purportedly made to a political party, namely 'Apna Desh Party'. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequent to the processing , information was received following a search operation conducted on the said political party. The investigation revealed a systematic \"accommodation entry\" racket wherein the party provided bogus donation receipts in exchange for commission from 3% to 5%), returning the donation amount to the Consequently, proceedings under Section 148A were initiated. Despite being confronted with specific evidence—including the sworn statement of the President of the Apna Desh Party admitting to providing bogus entries—the Assessee initially maintained the nuineness of the claim during the Section 148A(b) proceedings. However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the Assessee filed a return of income withdrawing the said claim and Exim Trac., 2 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in law and facts in dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of 200% being u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. iefly stated, the Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the export of general merchandise. For the relevant AY 2019-20, the Assessee filed its return of income on 25.09.2019, declaring a total . In this return, a deduction of ₹1,00,000/- was claimed under Section 80GGC on account of a donation purportedly made to a political party, namely 'Apna Desh Party'. The return of income filed by the assessee was to the processing , information was received following a search operation conducted on the said political party. The investigation revealed a systematic \"accommodation entry\" racket wherein the party provided bogus donation receipts in exchange for commission from 3% to 5%), returning the donation amount to the Consequently, proceedings under Section 148A were initiated. including the sworn statement of the President of the Apna Desh Party admitting the Assessee initially maintained the nuineness of the claim during the Section 148A(b) proceedings. However, following the issuance of notice under Section 148, the Assessee filed a return of income withdrawing the said claim and Printed from counselvise.com paying the requisite tax and interest. The assessment was concluded on 06.01.2025 147, accepting the returned income. 2.3 The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A, alleging \"under income in consequence of misreporting.\" The Assessee's plea of \"voluntary disclosure,\" holding that the withdrawal of the claim was a result of inevitable detection rather than bona fide contrition. A penalty of 200% of the tax sought to be evaded was imposed, which was subsequently CIT(A) observing as under: 6.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated that it is a regularly assessed tax all returns along with the mandatory tax audit report. In response to the notice include the political donation of Rs. 1,00,000 as taxable income and paid tax and interest thereon before the reassessment was completed. The addition was not disputed to maintain peace with the department despit appellant argued that no concealment or misrepresentation existed because the donation details were already disclosed in the return, supported by a receipt and bank evidence. The AO, it maintained, carried out no independe evidence that the donation was returned in cash, and instead merely relied upon information from another search case. It claimed that the penalty notice and order were mechanical, vague, and issued without lawful jurisdiction, p AO failed to establish intentional misreporting. Therefore, the levy of penalty was claimed to be unjustified, contrary to law, and based on presumptions rather than facts. ITA Nos. paying the requisite tax and interest. The assessment was 06.01.2025 under Section 144B read with Section 147, accepting the returned income. The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A, alleging \"under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting.\" The AO rejected the Assessee's plea of \"voluntary disclosure,\" holding that the withdrawal of the claim was a result of inevitable detection rather than bona fide contrition. A penalty of 200% of the tax sought to be evaded was imposed, which was subsequently upheld by the Ld. observing as under: 6.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated that it is a regularly assessed tax-compliant exporter that filed all returns along with the mandatory tax audit report. In response to the notice under section 148, it revised the return to include the political donation of Rs. 1,00,000 as taxable income and paid tax and interest thereon before the reassessment was completed. The addition was not disputed to maintain peace with the department despite the donation being genuine. The appellant argued that no concealment or misrepresentation existed because the donation details were already disclosed in the return, supported by a receipt and bank evidence. The AO, it maintained, carried out no independent verification or provided evidence that the donation was returned in cash, and instead merely relied upon information from another search case. It claimed that the penalty notice and order were mechanical, vague, and issued without lawful jurisdiction, particularly as the AO failed to establish intentional misreporting. Therefore, the levy of penalty was claimed to be unjustified, contrary to law, and based on presumptions rather than facts. Exim Trac., 3 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 paying the requisite tax and interest. The assessment was under Section 144B read with Section The Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter initiated penalty reporting of AO rejected the Assessee's plea of \"voluntary disclosure,\" holding that the withdrawal of the claim was a result of inevitable detection rather than bona fide contrition. A penalty of 200% of the tax sought to be upheld by the Ld. 6.4 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated compliant exporter that filed all returns along with the mandatory tax audit report. In under section 148, it revised the return to include the political donation of Rs. 1,00,000 as taxable income and paid tax and interest thereon before the reassessment was completed. The addition was not disputed to maintain peace with e the donation being genuine. The appellant argued that no concealment or misrepresentation existed because the donation details were already disclosed in the return, supported by a receipt and bank evidence. The AO, it nt verification or provided evidence that the donation was returned in cash, and instead merely relied upon information from another search case. It claimed that the penalty notice and order were mechanical, articularly as the AO failed to establish intentional misreporting. Therefore, the levy of penalty was claimed to be unjustified, contrary to law, Printed from counselvise.com 6.5 The details submitted are perused. It is observed that the A based the penalty on findings from a search operation conducted on the Apna Desh Party, engaged in providing bogus donation entries. The AO noted that the appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 under section 80GGC in its original return and only withdrew it after the case was reopened due to the search information. It was observed that the reassessment was completed accepting the revised income only because the appellant withdrew the donation claim after being had the search action not occurred, the appellant would have continued to enjoy an incorrect deduction, thereby misreporting income. Consequently, it was concluded that the appellant underreported income due to m of facts within the meaning of section 270A(9)(a), and levied penalty at 200 percent of tax on the disallowed amount. The AO rejected the argument of bona fides and voluntary compliance, considering the donation claim to be racket that came to light only through investigative action. 6.6 Regarding the appellant's argument that there was no underreporting since the reassessment accepted the returned income, the AO's position justifies penalty because disclosure arose only after detection through external investigation. The voluntary offer was not truly voluntary but a post-detection rectification. Under section 270A(9) (a), this qualifies as misreporting due to misrepresentation of facts. T claim under section 80GGC in the original return constituted an inaccurate statement of income, irrespective of later withdrawal. 6.6.1 On the contention that the donation was genuine and disclosed with full particulars, such disclosure cannot exonerate penalty if the underlying claim is found non credible evidence from search findings. With respect to the appellant's submission that the notice under section 270A was vague and -mechanical, the record shows that the AO clearly referred to underreporting in consequence of misreporting, citing section 270A(9)(a). Thus, the procedural requirement was ITA Nos. 6.5 The details submitted are perused. It is observed that the A based the penalty on findings from a search operation conducted on the Apna Desh Party, which revealed that the party was engaged in providing bogus donation entries. The AO noted that the appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 under 0GGC in its original return and only withdrew it after the case was reopened due to the search information. It was observed that the reassessment was completed accepting the revised income only because the appellant withdrew the donation claim after being confronted with evidence. The AO held that, had the search action not occurred, the appellant would have continued to enjoy an incorrect deduction, thereby misreporting income. Consequently, it was concluded that the appellant underreported income due to misrepresentation and suppression of facts within the meaning of section 270A(9)(a), and levied penalty at 200 percent of tax on the disallowed amount. The AO rejected the argument of bona fides and voluntary compliance, considering the donation claim to be part of a bogus donation racket that came to light only through investigative action. 6.6 Regarding the appellant's argument that there was no underreporting since the reassessment accepted the returned income, the AO's position justifies penalty because disclosure arose only after detection through external investigation. The voluntary offer was not truly voluntary but a detection rectification. Under section 270A(9) (a), this qualifies as misreporting due to misrepresentation of facts. T claim under section 80GGC in the original return constituted an inaccurate statement of income, irrespective of later withdrawal. 6.6.1 On the contention that the donation was genuine and disclosed with full particulars, such disclosure cannot exonerate penalty if the underlying claim is found non-genuine based on credible evidence from search findings. With respect to the appellant's submission that the notice under section 270A was mechanical, the record shows that the AO clearly underreporting in consequence of misreporting, citing section 270A(9)(a). Thus, the procedural requirement was Exim Trac., 4 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 6.5 The details submitted are perused. It is observed that the AO based the penalty on findings from a search operation conducted which revealed that the party was engaged in providing bogus donation entries. The AO noted that the appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs. 1,00,000 under 0GGC in its original return and only withdrew it after the case was reopened due to the search information. It was observed that the reassessment was completed accepting the revised income only because the appellant withdrew the donation confronted with evidence. The AO held that, had the search action not occurred, the appellant would have continued to enjoy an incorrect deduction, thereby misreporting income. Consequently, it was concluded that the appellant isrepresentation and suppression of facts within the meaning of section 270A(9)(a), and levied penalty at 200 percent of tax on the disallowed amount. The AO rejected the argument of bona fides and voluntary compliance, part of a bogus donation racket that came to light only through investigative action. 6.6 Regarding the appellant's argument that there was no underreporting since the reassessment accepted the returned income, the AO's position justifies penalty because the revised disclosure arose only after detection through external investigation. The voluntary offer was not truly voluntary but a detection rectification. Under section 270A(9) (a), this qualifies as misreporting due to misrepresentation of facts. The claim under section 80GGC in the original return constituted an inaccurate statement of income, irrespective of later withdrawal. 6.6.1 On the contention that the donation was genuine and disclosed with full particulars, such disclosure cannot exonerate genuine based on credible evidence from search findings. With respect to the appellant's submission that the notice under section 270A was mechanical, the record shows that the AO clearly underreporting in consequence of misreporting, citing section 270A(9)(a). Thus, the procedural requirement was Printed from counselvise.com satisfied. The appellant's reliance on earlier precedents regarding section 271(1)(c) does not directly apply, as the structure and language of categories of underreporting and misreporting. 6.6.2 Finally, the claim of co cannot override the statutory presumption where misreporting is detected through concrete evidence of false correctly invoked penalty under section 270A at 200 percent, as the material facts entry racket-were unearthed only through Departmental investigation, and not disclosed by the appellant suo 6.6.3 In view of the above facts and discussion the ground of appeal is hereby dismissed and penalty levied by the A.O. is hereby confirmed. 3. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee again reiterated the submissions which were made before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has voluntarily offered the said deduction for tax in the return of income filed in response to sec 148 of the Ac between the returned income and assessed income in the reassessment proceedings; hence, Section 270A is not triggered; Further the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the notice issued u/s 270A of the Act is defec failing to specify the exact limb of \"misreporting\" under Section 270A(9), thereby violating the principles of natural justice notice itself is liable to be quashed. In support thereof the Ld. Counsel relied in the following judicial ITA Nos. satisfied. The appellant's reliance on earlier precedents regarding section 271(1)(c) does not directly apply, as the structure and language of section 270A differ, defining distinct categories of underreporting and misreporting. 6.6.2 Finally, the claim of co-operation and bona fide intent cannot override the statutory presumption where misreporting is detected through concrete evidence of false claim. The AO has correctly invoked penalty under section 270A at 200 percent, as the material facts-particularly the donation being part of a bogus were unearthed only through Departmental investigation, and not disclosed by the appellant suo 6.6.3 In view of the above facts and discussion the ground of appeal is hereby dismissed and penalty levied by the A.O. is hereby confirmed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee again reiterated the submissions which were made before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has voluntarily offered the said deduction for tax in the return of income filed in response to sec 148 of the Act and there is no \"variation\" between the returned income and assessed income in the reassessment proceedings; hence, Section 270A is not triggered; Further the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the notice issued u/s 270A of the Act is defective failing to specify the exact limb of \"misreporting\" under Section 270A(9), thereby violating the principles of natural justice notice itself is liable to be quashed. In support thereof the Ld. Counsel relied in the following judicial decisions: Exim Trac., 5 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 satisfied. The appellant's reliance on earlier precedents regarding section 271(1)(c) does not directly apply, as the section 270A differ, defining distinct operation and bona fide intent cannot override the statutory presumption where misreporting is claim. The AO has correctly invoked penalty under section 270A at 200 percent, as particularly the donation being part of a bogus were unearthed only through Departmental motu. 6.6.3 In view of the above facts and discussion the ground of appeal is hereby dismissed and penalty levied by the A.O. is Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee again reiterated the submissions which were made before the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that assessee has voluntarily offered the said deduction for tax in the return of income filed in there is no \"variation\" between the returned income and assessed income in the reassessment proceedings; hence, Section 270A is not triggered; Further the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that tive and vague, failing to specify the exact limb of \"misreporting\" under Section 270A(9), thereby violating the principles of natural justice , the notice itself is liable to be quashed. In support thereof the decisions: Printed from counselvise.com i. ACIT Vs Anuj Prakash Gupta ITA No. 11/RPR/2026 dated 05.02.2026. ii. Shri Deepak Mittal Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), ITA No. 393/Vizag/2014. iii. PCIT Vs. Gragerious Projects Pvt Ltd in (2025) 475 ITR 546 (Delhi) iv. Kaemaveer Singh Vs. ITO 25(1), Delhi ITA 4673 3.1 Per contra the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that (i) The \"voluntariness\" claimed by the Assessee is a facade. The claim was only withdrawn after the Department unearthed the fraud via a search operation; (ii) Section specifically covers \"misrepresentation or suppression of facts,\" which is squarely applicable here. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and scrutinized the material on record. The primary issue before us is whether the Assessee’s conduct cons misreporting\" within the meaning of Section 270A. 4.1 The Assessee’s reliance on decisions pertaining to Section 271(1)(c) is misplaced. Unlike the erstwhile \"concealment\" or \"inaccurate particulars\" regime, Sect hierarchy of \"under- specifically invoked Section 270A(9)(a), which pertains to the misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The record indicates that the Assessee was fully aware of the ch the specific allegations regarding the bogus donation. Thus, the notice cannot be termed vague or mechanical. ITA Nos. ACIT Vs Anuj Prakash Gupta ITA No. 11/RPR/2026 dated Shri Deepak Mittal Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), ITA No. 393/Vizag/2014. PCIT Vs. Gragerious Projects Pvt Ltd in (2025) 475 ITR 546 Kaemaveer Singh Vs. ITO 25(1), Delhi ITA 4673/Del/2024. he Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that (i) The \"voluntariness\" claimed by the Assessee is a facade. The claim was only withdrawn after the Department unearthed the fraud via a search operation; (ii) Section specifically covers \"misrepresentation or suppression of facts,\" which is squarely applicable here. We have heard the rival contentions and scrutinized the material on record. The primary issue before us is whether the Assessee’s conduct constitutes \"under-reporting in consequence of misreporting\" within the meaning of Section 270A. The Assessee’s reliance on decisions pertaining to Section 271(1)(c) is misplaced. Unlike the erstwhile \"concealment\" or \"inaccurate particulars\" regime, Section 270A creates a distinct -reporting\" and \"misreporting.\" The AO specifically invoked Section 270A(9)(a), which pertains to the misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The record indicates that the Assessee was fully aware of the charges, having responded to the specific allegations regarding the bogus donation. Thus, the notice cannot be termed vague or mechanical. Exim Trac., 6 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 ACIT Vs Anuj Prakash Gupta ITA No. 11/RPR/2026 dated Shri Deepak Mittal Vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), ITA No. PCIT Vs. Gragerious Projects Pvt Ltd in (2025) 475 ITR 546 /Del/2024. he Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), submitted that (i) The \"voluntariness\" claimed by the Assessee is a facade. The claim was only withdrawn after the Department unearthed the fraud via a search operation; (ii) Section 270A(9)(a) specifically covers \"misrepresentation or suppression of facts,\" We have heard the rival contentions and scrutinized the material on record. The primary issue before us is whether the reporting in consequence of The Assessee’s reliance on decisions pertaining to Section 271(1)(c) is misplaced. Unlike the erstwhile \"concealment\" or ion 270A creates a distinct reporting\" and \"misreporting.\" The AO specifically invoked Section 270A(9)(a), which pertains to the misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The record indicates that arges, having responded to the specific allegations regarding the bogus donation. Thus, the Printed from counselvise.com 4.2 The statutory scheme of Section 270A(9) is designed to penalize dishonest claims. In the present case, the Assesse a deduction for a donation that investigation proved to be a circular movement of cash. Further the contention of the assessee that he voluntary withdrawn the deduction claimed in regular return of income is also not justified because even during proceedings u/s 148A of the Act, the claim and did not accept for withdrawal of deduction of section 80GGC and submitted the claim to be genuine despite the ld AO brought the facts emerged in the course of search in the case of political party. Thus offering the income in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act cannot be treated as voluntarily nature. of mind\" for offering the income does not negate the fact that the initial claim was based on a non 4.3 The act of claiming a deduction for an accommodation entry is a classic case of misrepresentation of facts \"voluntary\" offer in response to a Section 148 notice after the Department had third-party search—is merely an attempt to mitigate the consequences of detection. It does not wash away the initial misreporting. ITA Nos. The statutory scheme of Section 270A(9) is designed to penalize dishonest claims. In the present case, the Assesse a deduction for a donation that investigation proved to be a circular Further the contention of the assessee that he voluntary withdrawn the deduction claimed in regular return of income is also not justified because even during proceedings u/s 148A of the Act, the Assessee initially defended did not accept for withdrawal of deduction of section 80GGC and submitted the claim to be genuine despite the ld AO brought the facts emerged in the course of case of political party. Thus offering the income in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act cannot be treated as voluntarily nature. Further the argument of “ of mind\" for offering the income does not negate the fact that the based on a non-existent transaction. The act of claiming a deduction for an accommodation entry is misrepresentation of facts. The subsequent \"voluntary\" offer in response to a Section 148 notice— after the Department had obtained incontrovertible evidence from a is merely an attempt to mitigate the consequences of detection. It does not wash away the initial Exim Trac., 7 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 The statutory scheme of Section 270A(9) is designed to penalize dishonest claims. In the present case, the Assessee claimed a deduction for a donation that investigation proved to be a circular Further the contention of the assessee that he voluntary withdrawn the deduction claimed in regular return of income is also not justified because even during the the Assessee initially defended did not accept for withdrawal of deduction of section 80GGC and submitted the claim to be genuine despite the ld AO brought the facts emerged in the course of case of political party. Thus offering the income in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act cannot Further the argument of “peace of mind\" for offering the income does not negate the fact that the The act of claiming a deduction for an accommodation entry is . The subsequent —issued only obtained incontrovertible evidence from a is merely an attempt to mitigate the consequences of detection. It does not wash away the initial Printed from counselvise.com 4.4 The decisions relied upon by the assessee before us have already been dealt by case of Anuj Prakash Gupta (supra) & Shri Deepak Mittal (supra) are distinguishable from the facts as both the decisions related to under Section 80GGA, and not on the issue o the case of Gregerious Pvt Ltd (supra) terms of Sec. 270A(1)(c) of the Act. T said decision was as under: 8. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 23.05.2017, vide made on account of alleged advance given to M/s. TAIDIA Construction and written off in the year under consideration. The AO while disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted that the assessee company had supporting evidence in respect of the advance. 9. AO further adjusted the business loss of Rs. 14,046/ income from short term capital loss and assessed the total income at Rs. 96,88,900/ claimed in the ITR. 10. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO and after recording his satisfaction, notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) was issued, whereby, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271 it.” 4.5. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the said case are different from the case of the assessee. ITA Nos. The decisions relied upon by the assessee before us have already been dealt by the Ld. CIT(A). The decision in the Anuj Prakash Gupta (supra) & Shri Deepak Mittal are distinguishable from the facts as both the decisions related to disputes over the eligibility of deductions under Section 80GGA, and not on the issue of penalty. Gregerious Pvt Ltd (supra), penalty levied by in of Sec. 270A(1)(c) of the Act. The issue in dispute in as under: 8. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 23.05.2017, vide which, an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/ made on account of alleged advance given to M/s. TAIDIA Construction and written off in the year under consideration. The AO while disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted that the assessee company had failed to file any agreement or supporting evidence in respect of the advance. 9. AO further adjusted the business loss of Rs. 14,046/ income from short term capital loss and assessed the total income at Rs. 96,88,900/- as against loss of Rs. 5,00,14,046/ claimed in the ITR. 10. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO and after recording his satisfaction, notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) was issued, whereby, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) may not be imposed upon Thus, the facts and circumstances of the said case are om the case of the assessee. Exim Trac., 8 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 The decisions relied upon by the assessee before us have he decision in the Anuj Prakash Gupta (supra) & Shri Deepak Mittal are distinguishable from the facts as both the disputes over the eligibility of deductions f penalty. Further in , penalty levied by in he issue in dispute in 8. Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed which, an addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- was made on account of alleged advance given to M/s. TAIDIA Construction and written off in the year under consideration. The AO while disallowing the alleged business expenditure noted failed to file any agreement or 9. AO further adjusted the business loss of Rs. 14,046/- with the income from short term capital loss and assessed the total 5,00,14,046/-, 10. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the AO and after recording his satisfaction, notice u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) was issued, whereby, the assessee was asked to show (1) (c) may not be imposed upon Thus, the facts and circumstances of the said case are Printed from counselvise.com 4.6 Similarly, the facts in distinguishable as the notice therein was devoid of any sp statutory limb, whereas here, the AO has clearly identified the charge under Section 270A(9)(a). 4.7 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Assessee’s conduct squarely falls under the ambit of \"misreporting\" through the suppression and misrepresentation of the nature of the transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty at the rat 200%. We find no reason to interfere with the well the lower authorities. submission we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the issue in dispute. The sole ground of the appeal of the assessee accordingly dismissed. 5. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 27/03/2026 KRK, SR. PS ITA Nos. Similarly, the facts in Kaeamveer Singh (supra) are distinguishable as the notice therein was devoid of any sp statutory limb, whereas here, the AO has clearly identified the charge under Section 270A(9)(a). In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Assessee’s conduct squarely falls under the ambit of \"misreporting\" through the suppression and misrepresentation of the nature of the transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty at the rat 200%. We find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the lower authorities. Accordingly in view of the above submission we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the issue in he sole ground of the appeal of the assessee y dismissed. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands ounced in the open Court on 27 Sd/- SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Exim Trac., 9 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 (supra) are distinguishable as the notice therein was devoid of any specific statutory limb, whereas here, the AO has clearly identified the In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Assessee’s conduct squarely falls under the ambit of \"misreporting\" through the suppression and misrepresentation of the nature of the transaction. The Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty at the rate of reasoned order of Accordingly in view of the above submission we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the issue in he sole ground of the appeal of the assessee In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands ounced in the open Court on 27/03/2026. OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Exim Trac., 10 ITA Nos. 8948/MUM/2025 (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "