The assessee’s application for grant of immunity from penalty under section 270A was rejected on the ground that the assessee did not fall within the scope and ambit of section 270AA. On a writ petition contending that the order having been passed beyond the period of one month from the end of the month in which the assessee had filed the application seeking immunity was barred by limitation in terms of section 270AA(4) of the Act. Allowing the petition the Court held that the order of the Assessing Officer denying the benefit of immunity from penalty on the ground that the penalty was initiated under section 270A for misreporting of income was not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason since in the penalty notice he had failed to specify the limb-under-reporting or misreporting of income, under which the penalty proceedings had been initiated and how the ingredients of sub-section (9) of section 270A were satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word “misreporting” in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution made the order manifestly arbitrary. The entire edifice of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was actually voluntary computation of income filed by the assessee to buy peace and avoid litigation, which fact had been duly noted and accepted in the assessment order and consequently, there was no question of any misreporting. The action of the Assessing Officer was contrary to the legislative intent of section 270AA. Therefore, the order passed under section 270AA(4) rejecting the assessee’s application for immunity from penalty was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant immunity under section 270AA to the assessee. Court observed that the legislative intent of section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is to encourage or incentivize a taxpayer to  fast-track settlement of issues, recover tax demands, and  reduce protracted litigation. (AY. 2018-19)