Archive · 16 Sep 2026
ITAT Jaipur Cancels ₹8.29 Lakh Penalty After Relocation-Related ITR Lapse
Saxena moved from India to the United States and did not file his Indian tax return on time.
He said he was busy settling into a new country and did not understand all the filing rules.
He later paid about ₹1.62 lakh in tax, interest and late fees voluntarily.
The tax department then reopened his case after finding his salary income.
Saxena filed a return showing income of ₹20.49 lakh.
Officials treated the disclosed income as under-reported and imposed a penalty of ₹8,29,034.
Saxena appealed, saying the missed filing was accidental rather than dishonest.
ITAT Jaipur agreed and removed the entire penalty.
Saxena earned about ₹26.06 lakh but missed filing his income-tax return after moving to the United States.
He voluntarily paid approximately ₹1.62 lakh in self-assessment tax, interest and late fees on August 23, 2019.
The Income Tax Department reopened his case after identifying salary income and issued a notice under Section 148.
An assessing officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld an ₹8,29,034 penalty for alleged misreporting.
ITAT Jaipur deleted the entire penalty and condoned a 49-day appeal delay linked to a Kanpur-Jaipur portal jurisdiction mismatch.
- Who
- Saxena, the Income Tax Department, the assessing officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and ITAT Jaipur.
- What
- ITAT Jaipur cancelled an ₹8,29,034 penalty imposed on Saxena for alleged income misreporting after a missed ITR filing.
- When
- Saxena paid tax on August 23, 2019; ITAT Jaipur issued its ruling on August 17, 2026.
- Where
- The case involved Indian income-tax proceedings, with a jurisdictional dispute between Kanpur and Jaipur on the tax portal; Saxena had relocated to the United States.
- Why
- ITAT Jaipur found that the missed filing was an inadvertent compliance lapse and granted protection under Section 270A(6).
Tax authorities’ position
Taxpayer and tribunal’s position
Treatment of disclosed income
Tax authorities’ position
The assessing officer treated income disclosed through the reassessment return as under-reported income and classified it as misreporting under Section 270A(9)(a).
Taxpayer and tribunal’s position
Saxena said he had missed the filing deadline inadvertently, had voluntarily paid tax and applicable charges, and had not deliberately misreported income.
Penalty
Tax authorities’ position
The assessing officer imposed an ₹8,29,034 penalty, which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld.
Taxpayer and tribunal’s position
ITAT Jaipur held that Saxena was entitled to protection under Section 270A(6) and deleted the full penalty.
Appeal delay
Tax authorities’ position
The appeal was filed 49 days late.
Taxpayer and tribunal’s position
ITAT Jaipur condoned the delay because of a jurisdictional mismatch between Kanpur and Jaipur on the income-tax portal.
- Reported income
- Approximately ₹26.06 lakh during the relevant financial year
- Income declared in reassessment return
- ₹20.49 lakh
- Voluntary tax payment
- Approximately ₹1.62 lakh in self-assessment tax, interest and late fees
- Penalty imposed
- ₹8,29,034 under Section 270A
- Penalty outcome
- ITAT Jaipur ordered deletion of the entire penalty
- Appeal delay
- A 49-day delay was condoned
- Relevant provisions
- Sections 148, 270A, 270A(6), 270A(9)(a) and 139(4) of the Income-tax Act