Case Law Details
Nagarathinam Rajendran Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
Since the assessee could not file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 F of the Act. There was no response from the assessee against the penalty notice. Since, the assessee failed to file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹. 5,000/- under section 271 F of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).
The case of the assessee is that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.09.2014 through his representative Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, CA and after few days he fell in sick, hospitalized and thereafter he expired on 17.11.2014. Copy of the death certificate was brought on record. The assessee was under bonafide belief that the CA would have filed E-verification. Only after service of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee came to know that E-verification was not done while filing the return of income on 30.09.2014. Thereafter in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee once again filed the return. Since the delay in doing E-verification/filing belated return is neither wilful nor wanton and the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty of ₹.5,000/- is not liable to be levied under section 271F of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271 F of the Act is deleted.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
