ACIT Vs Metric Stream Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Banglore)
There is a categorical finding returned by Ld.CIT(A) that assessee was unable to get loan from Citibank for meeting the expenses and Citibank also refused to extend the loan. Subsequently assessee was waiting for funds from the principle which was received only after 31/03/2013 by issue of series of 3 preferred stock. It has been observed by Ld.CIT(A) that the funds have been raised by assessee from issue of stock by the principle to the subsidiary, out of which the taxes were paid immediately and IT returns were furnished.
We observe that Ld.CIT(A) has considered the financial difficulties faced by assessee in a very practical manner thereby deleting the penalty of Rs.5000/- levied under section 271F of the act. This view is also supported by the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs KTC Tires India Pvt Ltd. (supra). Under such circumstances the view taken by Ld.CIT(A) do not call for any interference and the same is upheld.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 27/09/2019 passed by learnt CIT (A),-4, Bangalore for
assessment year 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal:
“1. That the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the Assessee in so far as Issue of Penalty u/s 271F is concerned.
2. That the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that even though the Assessee had sufficient Cash and Bank balance, it had ignored to pay the tax dues.
3. That the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Assessee has not exhibited reasonable cause to explain the delay in filing the returns.
4. That the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that provisions of Section 271F has been introduced only as a measure to ensure timely filing of Returns by taxpayer so as to enable the AO to carry out necessary further action with respect to the returns as prescribed under the Act and it does not provide for the non levy of Penalty u/s 271F on account of financial hardship.
5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has dealt with every aspect of the Assessee’s claim and arrived at the rightful conclusion to levy Penalty u/s 271F.”
2. At the outset the Ld. DR submitted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by one day. She placed reliance on there can donation application dated 03/12/2019. The Ld.Sr.DR reiterated the reason as mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that the order under 253 (2) was passed by the Ld.Pr.Commissioner on 02/12/2019 and the same was received in the office at 5 PM and hence there is a delay of oneday in filing the present appeal.
3. The Ld.AR did not object for the delay to be condoned.
Accordingly the cut delay of one-day is condoned in filing the present appeal by revenue before this Tribunal.
4. The Ld.Sr.DR submitted that present appeal arises out of order passed under section 271F of the Act for failure of assessee to furnish the return of income by the end of the relevant assessment year in consideration. She submitted that assessee has not responded to the notice under section 271F issued by the Ld.AO and as per section 271F sum of Rs. 5000/- has been levied as penalty for non-furnishing of return of income by the end of the assessment year.
5. On an appeal before Ld.CIT(A), the order of Ld.AO imposing penalty under section 271F of the Act was confirmed.
