O R D E R

Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the Ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order 24.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1)(1), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 270A of the Act date of order 27.03.2024.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:-

“Ground

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 250 confirming the penalty u/s 270A and the order u/s 270A itself are bad in law because the appellant's case falls under "under-reporting" as per Sections 270A(2)(b) and 270A(3)(b)(B), and not "mis-reporting" under Section 270A(9); therefore, levy of penalty at 200 per cent is illegal and unsustainable.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders u/s 250, 270A and 270AA are bad in law because non-filing of a return u/s 139 followed by filing a valid return u/s 148 cannot constitute "misrepresentation or suppression of facts" within the meaning of Section 270A(9)(a); the return was duly furnished in compliance with statutory notice, disclosing full particulars of income accepted by the Department.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 270AA rejecting the immunity application is bad in law because it was passed after expiry of the period of one months prescribed in Section 270AA(4) and is therefore time-barred and without jurisdiction.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 270AA is bad in law because it was passed without providing an opportunity of being heard as mandated by the proviso to Section 270AA(4), violating principles of natural justice and rendering the order null and void.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 250 and is 270A are bad in law because the explanation furnished by the appellant was bona fide and all material facts were disclosed; hence by virtue of Section 270A(6)(a) no penalty could be imposed.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 250 and u/s 270AA are bad in law because once the conditions under Section 270AA(1) were fulfilled-payment of tax and interest within time and non-filing of appeal-the Assessing Officer was duty-bound under Section 270AA(3) to grant immunity; the refusal amounts to gross misapplication of law.

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 250 is bad in law because the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment accepted the income as returned; consequently, no variation or concealment existed to warrant penalty.

8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders u/s 250 and u/s 270A are bad in law because the penalty proceedings were concluded in gross haste and mechanically without independent application of mind or consideration of the appellant's submissions and evidence.

9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 250 is contrary to the object and scheme of Section 270A which differentiates between "under-reporting" (subject to 50 per cent penalty) and "mis-reporting" (subject to 200 per cent penalty); treating a mere belated return as mis-reporting defeats the legislative intent and results in disproportionate penalty.

10.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order u/s 250 and u/s 270A are bad in law because the penalty order suffers from jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, and absence of proper satisfaction, and therefore deserves to be quashed.

11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the aassessee is a non filer of the income tax return. Further, information was available on the list of Non-filers in the