Section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.439

Section 270A(9) falls under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 439 (Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 439 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 270A(9) is Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (280 Taxmann 334), cited in 42 of the 107 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 270A(9)

Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru
280 Taxmann 334 · 2021 · High Court
42
citing judgments
Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court
32
citing judgments

When initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) must specify the limb of the charge, indicating whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This requirement is essential for valid penalty proceedings.

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.
443 ITR 186 · 2022 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax
127 ITR 671 · 1981 · High Court
21
citing judgments

If agricultural operations are being carried out on land at the time of sale and revenue records indicate it is agricultural land, a presumption arises that it is agricultural in character, which the revenue must rebut. Permission to convert land to non-agricultural use does not render it non-agricultural if not obtained before the sale.

CIT v. ECS Ltd.
336 ITR 162 · 2011 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's satisfaction for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be discernible from the assessment order, even if not expressly recorded in a specific format.

CIT v. Manilal Somnath
106 ITR 917 · 1977 · High Court
18
citing judgments

The potential non-agricultural value of land, or the large price a purchaser is willing to pay due to market conditions, does not change its essential character as agricultural land at the time of sale, provided it was used for agricultural purposes.

Gordhanbhai Kahandas Dalwadi v. Commissioner of Income-tax
127 ITR 664 · 1981 · High Court
18
citing judgments

The character of land is determined by entries in revenue records, and if these records classify land as agricultural, it should be considered as such for tax purposes.

CIT v. Surjan Singh
125 Taxmann 1075 · 2002 · High Court
16
citing judgments

This case is cited for the proposition that the High Court can consider decisions from other High Courts and the Supreme Court when deciding an appeal.

Company Limited 432 ITR 84 (Del); 4. Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT
145 Taxmann.com 665 · 2022 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Immunity from penalty under Section 270AA may be granted if the assessment order is silent on how the ingredients of Section 270A(9) are satisfied, and the penalty notice fails to specify whether the penalty is for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income.

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC
157 Taxmann.com 749 · 2023 · Reported
11
citing judgments

A penalty levied for misreporting under section 270A is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to establish how the assessee's case falls within the specific instances of misreporting mentioned in section 270A(9). This requires an application of mind and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Judgments on Section 270A(9)

Raghavan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1776/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(b)Section 274

Daggubati Venkatesh, Chennai vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 645/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.645/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Daggubati Venkatesh Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai Income Tax, Vs. [Pan No.Aahpb0939Q] Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/02/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 04/03/2025 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, (“Learned Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Daggubati Venkatesh (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal With A Delay Of 21 Days. Learned Ar Explained That The Delay Was Due To The Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & Therefore, Pleaded To Condone The Delay. Heard Learned Dr. Delay Is Condoned. 2. Penalty In This Matter Is Levied Under Section 270A(9) Of The Act On The Ground Of Under Reported Income In Consequence Of Any Misreporting Thereof By The Assessee. Learned Ar Argued That The Learned Assessing

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada,CIT-DR
Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 9