Immunity under s.270AA was refused because the officer called it 'misreporting'. Can they do that with one word?
No. Denying immunity on a bare label of misreporting, without identifying which limb of s.270A or which sub-clause of s.270A(9) is attracted, was held manifestly arbitrary. The Court directed that immunity be granted.
Decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Manmohan J and Dinesh Kumar Sharma J) on 2022-03-28, reported as W.P.(C) No. 5111 of 2022; CM Nos. 15165-15166 of 2022; [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi); 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257. It bears on section 270A, section 270A(9), section 270AA, section 270AA(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Penalty matters.
Section 270AA immunity is the most commonly missed relief in penalty matters, and the most common reason it is refused is a one-word allegation of misreporting. This is the authority that says one word is not enough.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For AY 2018-19 the petitioner filed its return, and the assessment order dated 23 June 2021 accepted the income it had declared — a voluntary computation the petitioner had filed to buy peace and avoid litigation, which the assessment order itself noted. Penalty proceedings under s.270A followed, on a notice that did not say whether under-reporting or misreporting was alleged. The petitioner applied for immunity under s.270AA, and by order dated 9 March 2022 the Assessing Officer rejected the application on the ground that the case did not fall within the scope of s.270AA. Before the High Court the petitioner argued that the rejection was out of time under s.270AA(4), and that as all facts and figures had been accepted and the dispute was a pure question of law on the construction of the contracts, the Act and the DTAA, no misreporting could be alleged.
The order dated 9 March 2022 under s.270AA(4) rejecting the immunity application for AY 2018-19 was set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to grant immunity under s.270AA. Denying immunity on the footing that penalty had been initiated under s.270A for misreporting was erroneous, arbitrary and bereft of reason where the penalty notice did not specify which limb — under-reporting or misreporting — was invoked; there was not even a whisper as to which limb of s.270A was attracted or how the ingredients of s.270A(9) were satisfied, so a bare reference to the word 'misreporting' in the assessment order made the rejection manifestly arbitrary. The Court added that the assessment rested on the petitioner's own voluntary computation, filed to buy peace and avoid litigation and accepted as such in the assessment order, so no question of misreporting arose (paras 6 to 10). The petitioner's separate argument that the rejection order was barred by limitation under s.270AA(4) was recorded but not decided.
The Court gave three reasons. First, refusing immunity because penalty had been initiated for misreporting was erroneous, arbitrary and bereft of any reason when the penalty notice itself did not specify the limb of s.270A relied on (para 6). Second, there was not even a whisper as to which limb was attracted or how the ingredients of s.270A(9) were satisfied, and in the absence of those particulars a mere reference to the word 'misreporting' in the assessment order made the rejection manifestly arbitrary (para 7). Third, the entire edifice of the assessment order was in fact the petitioner's own voluntary computation of income, filed to buy peace and avoid litigation and noted and accepted as such in the assessment order, so there was no question of any misreporting (para 8). The Court added that the action was contrary to the avowed legislative intent of s.270AA, which is to encourage a taxpayer to fast-track settlement of the issue, to recover tax demand and to reduce protracted litigation (para 9).
This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. Denying immunity on a bare label of misreporting, without identifying which limb of s.270A or which sub-clause of s.270A(9) is attracted, was held manifestly arbitrary. The Court directed that immunity be granted. This was decided by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Manmohan J and Dinesh Kumar Sharma J) and bears on section 270A, section 270A(9), section 270AA, section 270AA(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) No. 5111 of 2022; CM Nos. 15165-15166 of 2022; [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi); 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257. Section 270AA immunity is the most commonly missed relief in penalty matters, and the most common reason it is refused is a one-word allegation of misreporting. This is the authority that says one word is not enough. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Apply within one month from the end of the month in which the assessment order was received — the window is short and unforgiving.
For AY 2018-19 the petitioner filed its return, and the assessment order dated 23 June 2021 accepted the income it had declared — a voluntary computation the petitioner had filed to buy peace and avoid litigation, which the assessment order itself noted. Penalty proceedings under s.270A followed, on a notice that did not say whether under-reporting or misreporting was alleged. The petitioner applied for immunity under s.270AA, and by order dated 9 March 2022 the Assessing Officer rejected the application on the ground that the case did not fall within the scope of s.270AA. Before the High Court the petitioner argued that the rejection was out of time under s.270AA(4), and that as all facts and figures had been accepted and the dispute was a pure question of law on the construction of the contracts, the Act and the DTAA, no misreporting could be alleged. The matter was decided on 2022-03-28 by the High Court (Delhi High Court — Manmohan J and Dinesh Kumar Sharma J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The order dated 9 March 2022 under s.270AA(4) rejecting the immunity application for AY 2018-19 was set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to grant immunity under s.270AA. Denying immunity on the footing that penalty had been initiated under s.270A for misreporting was erroneous, arbitrary and bereft of reason where the penalty notice did not specify which limb — under-reporting or misreporting — was invoked; there was not even a whisper as to which limb of s.270A was attracted or how the ingredients of s.270A(9) were satisfied, so a bare reference to the word 'misreporting' in the assessment order made the rejection manifestly arbitrary. The Court added that the assessment rested on the petitioner's own voluntary computation, filed to buy peace and avoid litigation and accepted as such in the assessment order, so no question of misreporting arose (paras 6 to 10). The petitioner's separate argument that the rejection order was barred by limitation under s.270AA(4) was recorded but not decided.
The Court gave three reasons. First, refusing immunity because penalty had been initiated for misreporting was erroneous, arbitrary and bereft of any reason when the penalty notice itself did not specify the limb of s.270A relied on (para 6). Second, there was not even a whisper as to which limb was attracted or how the ingredients of s.270A(9) were satisfied, and in the absence of those particulars a mere reference to the word 'misreporting' in the assessment order made the rejection manifestly arbitrary (para 7). Third, the entire edifice of the assessment order was in fact the petitioner's own voluntary computation of income, filed to buy peace and avoid litigation and noted and accepted as such in the assessment order, so there was no question of any misreporting (para 8). The Court added that the action was contrary to the avowed legislative intent of s.270AA, which is to encourage a taxpayer to fast-track settlement of the issue, to recover tax demand and to reduce protracted litigation (para 9). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9) of Section 270A is satisfied."
It was decided by the High Court on 2022-03-28 and is reported as W.P.(C) No. 5111 of 2022; CM Nos. 15165-15166 of 2022; [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi); 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 257. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 270A, section 270A(9), section 270AA, section 270AA(4), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The order dated 9 March 2022 under s.270AA(4) rejecting the immunity application for AY 2018-19 was set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to grant immunity under s.270AA. Denying immunity on the footing that penalty had been initiated under s.270A for misreporting was erroneous, arbitrary and bereft of reason where the penalty notice did not specify which limb — under-reporting or misreporting — was invoked; there was not even a whisper as to which limb of s.270A was attracted or how the ingredients of s.270A(9) were satisfied, so a bare reference to the word 'misreporting' in the assessment order made the rejection manifestly arbitrary. The Court added that the assessment rested on the petitioner's own voluntary computation, filed to buy peace and avoid litigation and accepted as such in the assessment order, so no question of misreporting arose (paras 6 to 10). The petitioner's separate argument that the rejection order was barred by limitation under s.270AA(4) was recorded but not decided. It arises in Penalty matters, on section 270A, section 270A(9), section 270AA, section 270AA(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Delhi High Court — Manmohan J and Dinesh Kumar Sharma J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Pay the tax and interest within the time allowed in the demand notice and do not file an appeal against the same order. In the application, point out precisely that the notice does not name any sub-clause of s.270A(9).
Validity check could not be completed. No later decision applying, following or affirming this judgment was found on the database, and the report carries no citator banner and no CASE REVIEW entry. Absence of contrary authority is not confirmation. The note previously carried here also asserted that a Finance Act 2026 amendment had opened s.270AA immunity to misreporting cases on payment of 100 per cent additional tax; that claim was checked twice against secondary sources and could not be corroborated, and it has been removed rather than republished. Verify the current text of s.270AA before advising on it. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
W.P.(C) No. 5111 of 2022, decided 28 March 2022 for AY 2018-19; reported at [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi). The relief turned on the officer's silence as to the limb, and on the further fact that the assessment merely accepted the assessee's own voluntary computation. Where the officer has spelt out a s.270A(9) sub-clause, this case will not assist. The petitioner's limitation argument under s.270AA(4) was recorded at para 3 but not decided, so the case is no authority on the one-month period. The Court did not decide the argument that the rejection order was barred by limitation under s.270AA(4), and did not consider whether the s.270AA conditions precedent were satisfied — they were not in dispute. Check those on your own facts. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The order dated 9 March 2022 under s.270AA(4) rejecting the immunity application for AY 2018-19 was set aside and the Assessing Officer directed to grant immunity under s.270AA. Denying immunity on the footing that penalty had been initiated under s.270A for misreporting was erroneous, arbitrary and bereft of reason where the penalty notice did not specify which limb — under-reporting or misreporting — was invoked; there was not even a whisper as to which limb of s.270A was attracted or how the ingredients of s.270A(9) were satisfied, so a bare reference to the word 'misreporting' in the assessment order made the rejection manifestly arbitrary. The Court added that the assessment rested on the petitioner's own voluntary computation, filed to buy peace and avoid litigation and accepted as such in the assessment order, so no question of misreporting arose (paras 6 to 10). The petitioner's separate argument that the rejection order was barred by limitation under s.270AA(4) was recorded but not decided.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I asked NFAC for a video hearing in my appeal and never got a link. Can that order stand?
The faceless order says I filed no reply when I did, and my hearing request was ignored. Is it valid?
You asked for time to reply to the draft order and were refused. Is the final order safe?
I claimed cess before the 2022 amendment and filed Form 69. Can they still levy s.270A penalty?