Case Law Details
Suresh Ramanbhai Naik Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
There is no dispute that the assessee has not filed return of income within due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12. It is matter of fact that the assessee filed return of income belatedly on 02/10/2012. Copy of acknowledgement of return is placed on record. On perusal of acknowledgement, we find that the assessee has claimed payment of tax of Rs. 23,183/- (by way of TDS). The Assessing Officer while finalizing the assessment order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the year 2018 initiated and levied penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for non-fling of return of income within due date as per the provisions of section 271F. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee was under bonafide belief that he is not having taxable income, therefore is not liable to file return of income. The ld. AR also submitted that subsequently, the assessee under legal advice, filed return of income, though it was filed belatedly. Thus, from the submission of ld. AR of the assessee, we find that the assessee has a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income on the pretext that he is not having taxable income. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record that the assessee is habitual in filing return belatedly. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has shown reasonable cause for not filing the return of income before due date of return. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under Section 271F of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 01/09/2021 which in turn arises from the order of penalty levied under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 15/03/2019 for the Assessment year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order of the Learned CIT(A) confirming the order of the Learned AO is not correct as per the law, facts, different pronouncements and for other reasons for taking the penalty of Rs. 5000 under Section 271F.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
