AIRPAY MONEY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 43 1 DELHI & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that the assessee had neither misrepresented nor suppressed facts, nor concealed any material particulars that would suggest misreporting of income as defined under Section 270A(9) of the Act. The Court found the Assessing Officer's order rejecting the Section 270AA application to be contrary to facts and law. The Court emphasized that penalty provisions are intended to deter evasion and misreporting, requiring a finding of mens rea or contumacious conduct, which was absent. The Court noted that the assessee had voluntarily paid the tax and interest. Consequently, the petitioner's application under Section 270AA was allowed, and the impugned order rejecting it, along with the penalty order, was quashed. The Court directed that the penalty should not be considered a source of revenue and that penalty provisions are for cases of evasion or misreporting with intent to evade tax.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Airpay Money Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 27.09.2024. The first order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking immunity from penalty. The second order imposed a penalty of Rs. 42,59,632/- under Section 270A. The petitioner argued that they had disclosed all facts and material information, and the Assessing Officer disagreed with their interpretation, which does not amount to misreporting income. The respondents contended that the Assessing Officer made no error in rejecting the Section 270AA application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner's application under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for immunity from penalty was rightly rejected by the Assessing Officer, considering the alleged misreporting or suppression of facts? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 270AA and Section 270A(9) of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had disclosed all facts and material information and had taken a particular view. They contended that the Assessing Officer's disagreement with their stand does not constitute misreporting of income. They relied on the principle that mere difference of opinion or interpretation does not amount to misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Assessing Officer, argued that the rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 270AA was legally sound and that the circumstances warranted the imposition of penalty under Section 270A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.09.2024, whereby petitioner’s application under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1961‟) was rejected. Petitioner has also challenged the order of even date whereby a penalty of Rs. 42,59,632/- under Section 270A was imposed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the order passed on 27.09.2024 and submitted that the respondents even in their reply have not been able to point out as to how the petitioner had misrepresented the facts and misreported the income.
He argued that the petitioner had disclosed all facts and material information and had taken a particular view, which did not find favour with respondents and simply because the Assessing Officer did not agree with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:37:27
petitioner’s stand, it cannot be said that the petitioner had misreported the income.
Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, on the other hand argued that the Assessing Officer had committed no error of law in rejecting petitioner’s application under Section 270AA of the Act of 1961. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Section 270AA of the Act of 1961 provides that the Commissioner of Income Tax can grant immunity to an assessee from imposing penalty under Section 270A, or under Section 276C or Section 276CC on fulfilling the following three conditions: (i) the tax and interest payable as per the assessment order or reassessment order has been paid; (ii) an application to the assessing officer seeking immunity from imposition of penalty is filed within a month from the end of the month in which the order is passed; (iii) the circumstances as provided under sub-section (9) of Section 270A of the Act of 1961 do not exist.
Sub-section (9) of Section 270A of the Act of 1961 reads as under: “(9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence; (d) recording of any false entry in the books of account; (e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and (f) failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemed to be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply.”
Having gone through the above referred provisions and facts of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:37:27
case, we are of the view that the assessee has neither misrepresented/suppressed the facts nor has it concealed any material particulars so as to suggest misreporting.
The order impugned passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 270AA of the Act of 1961 is therefore, clearly contrary to facts and law and against the spirit of the statutory provisions, which appears to have been enacted with a view to reduce the litigation.
The assessee has volunteered rather paid tax and interest within thirty days of the demand having been raised. We are of the considered view that the Assessing Officers should not consider provisions of penalty to be a source of revenue. The penalty provisions in taxing statute are provided in order to deter the assessees from indulging in evasion or misreporting of income or in other words, when the assessee has either not disclosed the facts truly or has misrepresented the facts with the intention/mens rea to evade tax.
In absence of any mens-rea or a finding regarding contumacious conduct of the assessee, the Assessing Officer cannot impose penalty.
In view of the discussion, petitioner’s application under Section 270AA dated 02.04.2024 is hereby allowed and consequently the impugned order (annexure P-12) dated 27.09.2024 is also quashed.
The writ petition is allowed alongwith pending applications.
DINESH MEHTA, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J. APRIL 27, 2026/nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:37:27
More judgments on Section 270AA
- Zee Akaash New Private Limited, Mumbai vs ACIT Central Circle 2(4), MumbaiITA 6868/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parsvnath Rail Land Project Private… vs DCIT, Circle 19(1), C. R. Building, DelhiITA 5142/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Reddappa Srinivasa, Bengaluru vs DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Bangalore, BengaluruITA 654/BANG/2026[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Maheshkumar Bhagwandas Patel, Na vs Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, NavsariITA 662/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Maheshkumar Bhagwandas Patel, Na vs Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, NavsariITA 661/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026