NAGAATHINAM RAJENDIRAN,MADURAI vs. ADIT,NFAC, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return was due to reasonable cause and was neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271F was not liable to be imposed.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file their return of income within the stipulated time for AY 2014-15. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of ₹5,000 under section 271F, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed reasonable cause due to illness and subsequent death of their representative.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under section 271F is leviable when the delay in filing the return of income is due to a reasonable cause.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 139,Section 271F,Section 147,Section 144,Section 274
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
O R D E R
PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi dated 20.01.2023 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 passed under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Brief facts of the case are that in the case of the assessee, the assessment was completed under section 147/144 of the Act dated 21.09.2021. The assessee was liable to file his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. However, since the assessee has violated the provisions of sub section (1) of the section 139 of the Act by not filing the return of income within the time limit, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹.5,000/- under section 271F of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271F of the Act.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not doing the E- verification of the return filed on 30.09.2014, the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for deleting the penalty levied under section 271F of the Act.
On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below.
We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. 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. 271F 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 271F 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 271F of the Act is deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 06th April, 2023 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026