2025 (10) TMI 1219 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 270A(9) quashed where leave-encashment fully disclosed and claimed under bona fide, arguable legal view

ITAT held that penalty under section 270A(9) could not be sustained as misreporting requires a conscious falsification or concealment; the assessee had ... Penalty imposed u/s 270A - 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 - 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). HELD THAT:- 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 under- reporting, and even then penalty may not ensue where the explanation is bona fide and all material facts have been disclosed. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Assessee appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a claim for full exemption of leave encashment by a retired employee of a public-sector undertaking, contrary to the extant statutory ceiling, constitutes 'misreporting of income' within the meaning of section 270A(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether reliance on contemporaneous judicial observations and an arguable interpretation of law can negate the mens rea required for classification as misreporting under section 270A(9). 3. Whether a claim of exemption (as opposed to concealment, false entry, unrecorded receipt, or unsubstantiated expenditure) falls within any of the six limbs enumerated in section 270A(9). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Whether the claim for full exemption of leave encashment amounts to misreporting under section 270A(9) Legal framework: Section 270A distinguishes under-reporting and misreporting of income; sub-section (9) enumerates six exhaustive categories constituting misreporting, attracting higher penalty (200% of tax sought to be evaded). Misreporting entails acts of misrepresentation, suppression, false entries, unrecorded receipts/investments, claims not substantiated by evidence, or failure to report certain transactions. Precedent Treatment: The judgment treats the statutory scheme and explanatory taxonomy of section 270A as authoritative for distinguishing misreporting from mere erroneous claims. It notes judicial practice that penal provisions of quasi-criminal character require strict construction and that bona fide legal interpretations do not ordinarily attract punitive measures under misreporting clauses. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reads sub-section (9) as predicated on mens rea - conscious falsity, concealment or distortion of fact. It reasons that the assessee openly disclosed the leave-encashment receipt in both original and revised returns; no primary fact was suppressed or falsified. The sole dispute concerned the legal extent of exemption, a matter of interpretation rather than concealment. Application of clause (a) (misrepresentation or suppression of facts) is excluded because there was disclosure; clause (c) (claim of expenditure not substantiated by evidence) is inapposite because the claim relates to exemption, not expenditure. Other limbs (b), (d), (e), (f) are factually absent. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A claim founded on an arguable legal interpretation, with full disclosure of material facts, does not constitute misreporting under section 270A(9) in the absence of deliberate falsity or suppression. Obiter - Observations on policy and equitable considerations regarding subsequent legislative action and tax jurisprudence more broadly. Conclusions: The assessee's claim for full exemption of leave encashment cannot be categorised as misreporting under section 270A(9); the penalty under that provision is not sustainable on these facts. Issue 2 - Whether reliance on contemporaneous judicial observations and an arguable interpretation negates mens rea for misreporting Legal framework: Penal provisions require proof of deliberate conduct; bona fide belief in an arguable construction of law negates the culpable mental element necessary for misreporting. Penalty provisions are to be strictly construed. Precedent Treatment: The Court relies on accepted tax jurisprudence principles that bona fide interpretative claims, especially when grounded in judicial pronouncements, cannot be equated with concealment or deliberate misstatement. The decision references coordinate-bench decisions in similar contexts as supportive authorities (treated favorably rather than distinguished or overruled). Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee acted on contemporaneous observations of a constitutional court directing reconsideration of the statutory ceiling, forming a plausible legal basis for claiming full exemption. The Court notes subsequent executive action (Notification enhancing exemption limit prospectively) indicates the claim was not devoid of legal merit. The presence of disclosure, verifiable documentation from the employer, and an arguable legal position demonstrate lack of mens rea. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Bona fide reliance on authoritative judicial observations and an arguable legal position negates the deliberate falsity required for misreporting under section 270A(9). Obiter - Comments that prospective legislative change should not retroactively stigmatise prior bona fide claims. Conclusions: The assessee's bona fide reliance on judicial developments and arguable construction of law negates mens rea; penalty for misreporting cannot be imposed where such bona fide reliance exists and primary facts are disclosed. Issue 3 - Applicability of specific limbs of section 270A(9) to claims for statutory exemptions Legal framework: Section 270A(9) lists six categories: (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in books; (c) claim of expenditure not substantiated by evidence; (d) recording false entry; (e) failure to record any receipt having a bearing on income; (f) failure to report international or specified domestic transactions. The statute is exhaustive for misreporting. Precedent Treatment: The Court adheres to a literal and contextual reading of each limb and treats the enumerated categories as exhaustive, requiring actual alignment of facts with the statutory descriptions before invoking the enhanced penalty. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court matches the factual matrix against each limb: (a) excluded because no suppression or misrepresentation of primary facts occurred; (c) inapplicable because the claim concerned exemption, not an unsubstantiated expenditure; (b), (d), (e), (f) inapplicable for want of corresponding factual elements (no unrecorded investments, false entries, unrecorded receipt or international transactions). The Court emphasises that mere disagreement as to statutory entitlement does not satisfy any limb. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 270A(9) limbs must be strictly matched to the factual matrix; claims for statutory exemptions disclosed in returns do not fall within these limbs absent concealment or falsity. Obiter - None substantial beyond clarification of inapplicability of each limb on these facts. Conclusions: None of the six limbs of section 270A(9) are attracted where exemption is claimed openly and primary facts are disclosed; enhanced penalty cannot be sustained on such a basis. Issue 4 - Approach to imposition of penalty under quasi-criminal tax provisions where disclosure is complete but legal interpretation is debatable Legal framework: Penalty provisions in taxation are quasi-criminal and must be construed strictly; the onus lies on the department to establish deliberate falsity or suppression before invoking harsher penalties. Precedent Treatment: The Court reaffirms established principle that reasonable and bona fide explanations, especially supported by contemporaneous judicial observations and documentary disclosure, attract lenient treatment and preclude penalisation under misreporting. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court notes that all figures were sourced from the employer's certificate, the receipt was disclosed, and the only dispute was legal entitlement to exemption. It reasons that penalising such a taxpayer would conflate error with evasion and run counter to the strict construction requirement applicable to quasi-criminal provisions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where disclosure is complete and legal interpretation is debatable and bona fide, penalty under misreporting should not be imposed; strict construction of penal tax provisions requires clear proof of deliberate deception. Obiter - Observations on equitable considerations and the non-retrospective effect of subsequent administrative relaxation. Conclusions: The Court directs deletion of the penalty levied under section 270A(9) in the absence of deliberate falsity, allowing the appeal and setting aside the enhanced penalty.