Penalty for Misreporting Deleted as Leave Encashment Claim Was Bona Fide.

Issue

Can a penalty for “misreporting of income” under Section 270A(9) be levied on a taxpayer for claiming an exemption in excess of the then-existing statutory limit, if the claim was made in good faith, based on a plausible interpretation of law, and was subsequently justified by a government notification enhancing the said limit?

Facts

The assessee, a retired bank employee, received ₹11.91 lakhs as leave encashment upon retirement.
In his tax return, he claimed the entire amount as exempt under Section 10(10AA)(i), even though the statutory exemption limit at that time was only ₹3 lakhs.
The assessee fully disclosed the receipt of the entire amount in both his original and revised tax returns. There was no concealment or suppression of facts.
The claim for full exemption was based on a bona fide reliance on judicial observations from a High Court and an anticipation that the government would increase the long-stagnant limit.
The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the exemption only up to ₹3 lakhs and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A(9) for misreporting of income on the excess claim of ₹8.91 lakhs.
Subsequently, the CBDT issued a notification that enhanced the exemption limit for leave encashment to ₹25 lakhs, vindicating the assessee’s underlying belief.

Decision

The court ruled in favour of the assessee and deleted the penalty.
It held that the assessee’s explanation for the claim was reasonable and bona fide.
The court established that a claim founded on a plausible construction of law or a subsequently recognized equitable principle cannot be treated as ‘misreporting’ of income.

Key Takeaways

Misreporting Requires More Than an Incorrect Claim: “Misreporting” under Section 270A implies a deliberate act of providing inaccurate particulars, concealment, or gross negligence. A mere claim that is disallowed on a debatable or interpretive issue does not automatically amount to misreporting.
Full Disclosure is a Strong Defense: The fact that the assessee made a full and transparent disclosure of the primary facts (the amount received) was a crucial factor. It demonstrated a lack of intent to conceal income.
Bona Fide Belief Matters: A claim made in good faith, even if it is aggressive or ultimately unsuccessful, is a valid defense against the penalty for misreporting. The assessee’s reliance on judicial observations and the subsequent change in law supported the bona fides of the claim.
Subsequent Validation is a Key Factor: The government’s later action of increasing the exemption limit lent significant weight to the assessee’s argument that their claim was reasonable and not a frivolous attempt to evade tax.

IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘B’

Bharatkumar Jaishinh Soni

Income Tax Officer

Amit Shukla, Judicial Member
and PADMAVATHY S, Accountant Member

IT Appeal No. 4261 (Mum.) of 2025
[Assessment year 2020-21]

OCTOBER 13, 2025

Aditya Ramchandran for the Appellant. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui for the Respondent.

ORDER

Amit Shukla, Judicial Member.- The present appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12th June 2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, confirming the penalty imposed under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2. The assessee, an individual and a retired employee of the Bank of Baroda, a public-sector undertaking received on retirement a sum of ? 11,91,369 towards leave encashment during the financial year 2019-20. In his original return filed on 28 August 2020, he declared total income of ? 22,99,750 and claimed exemption of ? 3,00,000 on the said amount under section 10(10AA)(ii). Soon thereafter, on 2 September 2020, the assessee filed a revised return declaring total income of ? 14,08,380 and claiming full exemption of the leave-encashment amount under section 10(10AA)(i). The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment, held that as per the extant provisions the exemption was restricted to ? 3,00,000 and that employees of public-sector undertakings were not entitled to the benefit available to Central or State Government employees. The differential amount of ? 8,91,369 was therefore added to income, and penalty proceedings were initiated under section 270A alleging misreporting of income.

3. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee explained that his claim was based on bona fide reliance on judicial developments then current, particularly observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kamal Kumar Kalia v. Union of India (Delhi) (order dated 8 November 2019), wherein the Court had directed the Government to reconsider the monetary ceiling prescribed in section 10(10AA)(ii). The assessee contended that his belief that the entire leave encashment should be exempt was thus neither baseless nor mala fide. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the explanation and imposed penalty under section 270A(9) at 200 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded, quantifying the penalty at ? 5,51,016 on the alleged misreported income of ? 8,91,369.

4. The first appellate authority concurred with the Assessing Officer. While noting the Delhi High Court’s observations and the subsequent Notification dated 24 May 2023 enhancing the exemption limit to ? 25 lakhs with effect from 1 April 2023, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee’s reliance thereon was misplaced and that he was fully aware of his ineligibility as a PSU employee. The penalty was thus sustained.

5. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the case is one of a bona fide interpretative claim and not of concealment or misreporting. He pointed out that all primary facts were truly disclosed, the claim was made openly in the revised return, and the legal position had since been rendered fluid by subsequent governmental action raising the exemption threshold. Reliance was also placed on several coordinate-bench decisions which, in quantum appeals, have taken a liberal view in similar circumstances.

6. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, defended the impugned order, submitting that the assessee’s conduct fell within clauses (a) and (c) of section 270A(9) viz., misrepresentation or suppression of facts and claim of expenditure (or allowance) not substantiated by evidence and that the full exemption claim was a deliberate overstatement contrary to the unambiguous provision of law.

7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the record. The pivotal question is whether the act of the assessee in claiming full exemption of leave encashment can, on these admitted facts, be categorised as misreporting of income within the meaning of section 270A(9).

8. Section 270A, introduced by the Finance Act 2016, delineates two distinct classes of defaults under-reporting and misreporting of income. While under-reporting invites penalty at 50 per cent of the tax thereon, misreporting, being a graver infraction implying deliberate falsity or suppression, attracts a higher penalty at 200 per cent. Sub-section (9) specifies six exhaustive categories constituting misreporting:

(a)

misrepresentation or suppression of facts;

(b)

failure to record investments in books;

(c)

claim of expenditure not substantiated by evidence;

(d)

recording of any false entry in the books;

(e)

failure to record any receipt having a bearing on income; and

(f)

failure to report international or specified domestic transactions.

9. A careful reading of the statutory scheme reveals that misreporting is predicated on mens rea a conscious act of falsification, concealment, or distortion of fact leading to an incorrect computation of income. The legislature has deliberately confined it to situations involving deception or fabrication. Mere erroneous interpretation of law, or a claim founded on an arguable or debatable view, however untenable it may subsequently appear, does not partake the character of “misreporting.” It falls, if at all, within the realm of underreporting, and even then penalty may not ensue where the explanation is bona fide and all material facts have been disclosed.

10. When these principles are applied to the case before us, it becomes manifest that none of the clauses of section 270A(9) are attracted. The assessee disclosed the receipt of leave-encashment in full, both in the original and in the revised returns. There was no suppression, concealment, or falsification of any primary fact. The only difference lay in the quantum of exemption claimed an issue turning purely on legal interpretation. Clause (a), which contemplates

“misrepresentation or suppression of facts,” therefore stands excluded.

11. Clause (c) refers to “claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence.” The present claim is not one of expenditure but of exemption; the underlying payment is a verifiable retirement benefit received through the employer. Hence, the very genus of default envisaged in clause (c) is absent. Clauses (b), (d), (e) and (f) are patently inapplicable, as there is no unrecorded investment, false entry, unrecorded receipt, or international transaction involved.

12. The conduct of the assessee further bears the imprimatur of bona fide. The claim was made in reliance on judicial observation of a constitutional court and in anticipation of the Government’s acceptance thereof a development that in fact materialised when the CBDT, vide Notification No. 31/2023 dated 24 May 2023, enhanced the exemption limit to ? 25 lakhs. That the notification was given prospective effect does not retrospectively stigmatise those who, guided by the same reasoning, had earlier taken a liberal view of the provision. In tax jurisprudence, a claim founded on a plausible construction of law or on a subsequently recognised equitable principle cannot, by any stretch, be branded as misreporting.

13. It is trite that penalty provisions are quasi-criminal in nature and must be construed strictly. Unless the charge of deliberate falsity is clearly established, the assessee cannot be visited with the rigour of section 270A(9). Here, every figure in the return emanated from the employer’s certificate; nothing was hidden from the Department; the dispute was only as to the extent of statutory relief admissible. To characterise such disclosure as “misreporting” would be to blur the boundary between error and evasion.

14. In light of the above discussion, we hold that the case does not fall within any limb of sub-section (9) of section 270A. The explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable and bona fide, supported by contemporaneous judicial precedent and subsequent legislative recognition. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore cannot be upheld.

15. Accordingly, the penalty of ? 5,51,016 levied under section 270A(9) is hereby deleted, and the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.