The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for under-reporting of income under section 270A(2), but ultimately levied a penalty for misreporting of income under section 270A(9) without specifying the exact charge in the notice. The Tribunal held that the penalty notice suffered from a jurisdictional defect as it failed to inform the assessee whether the proposed penalty was for under-reporting or misreporting. Accordingly, the penalty was held to be unsustainable. Penalty was levied in respect of the disallowance of employees’ contributions to Provident Fund and Employees’ State Insurance. The Tribunal held that at the relevant time the issue was highly debatable and, therefore, the assessee could not be subjected to penalty under section 270A merely because the claim was ultimately disallowed. The deletion of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 270A in respect of an ad hoc disallowance of business expenditure. The Tribunal held that additions made purely on an estimated or ad hoc basis do not constitute under-reporting or misreporting of income warranting penalty under section 270A. The penalty was therefore deleted  (AY. 2017-18 & 2018-19).