Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.440

Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 440 (Immunity from imposition of penalty, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 440 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 270AA is PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (432 ITR 84), cited in 185 of the 167 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 270AA

PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
432 ITR 84 · 2021 · High Court
185
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact limb (i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.

Rajesh Kumar v. CIT
27 SCC 181 · 2007 · Reported
57
citing judgments

Where civil or evil consequences ensue from the action of a statutory authority, the principles of natural justice must be followed, even if not explicitly stated in the statute. Failure to comply with these principles may render a statute ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

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.

HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT (
274 ITR 603 · 2005 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An inaccurate claim made by the assessee cannot be treated as a case of giving inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of imposing penalty.

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.

PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar
111 Taxmann.com 256 · 2019 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) for income declared in a return filed under section 153C, as Explanation 5A is confined to the searched person and not to persons covered under section 153C. This applies even if no addition is made by the AO to the voluntarily declared income.

Mumbai) 3. ITO v. Rasiklal N Satra
98 ITD 335 · 2006 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

The exemption under section 54F(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is available for capital gains arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset that is not a residential house.

159 Taxman 26 (P & H) (iii) S.M.J. Housing v. CIT
111 Taxmann.com 257 · 2019 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 270AA

Income Tax Officer, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi, Jharkhand

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Ranchi………..…………….…….…...................................……….……Appellant Vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd ……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21, Ashok Bhawan, Kali Asthan Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand. [Pan: Aadca7460J] Appearances By: Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.01.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Special Smokeless Coal/Coke. The Assessee Also Derives Income By Way Of Interest On Bank Deposits. As Per Information Available With The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee’S Bank Accounts Reflected Substantial Cash Deposits, Which Were Allegedly Withdrawn Immediately Through Rtgs/Neft Transactions. It Was Further Observed That There Existed A Difference Between The Turnover Disclosed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income & The Total Credits Appearing In The Bank Accounts. On The Basis Of The Above Information, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Reassessment Proceedings By Issuing A Notice Under Section 148 Of The

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 273B