USHA VITTHAL KHARATE,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1606/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 August 2020AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income on time, considering her status as an agriculturist, illiterate, and facing financial/family problems. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271F was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist and illiterate lady, sold land and received Rs. 48,33,334/-. She failed to file her return of income within the specified time, leading to a penalty under Section 271F. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271F for delayed filing of return of income is justified when the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 271F,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri Prathamesh J. Lawand

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29-05-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2011-12 wherein he confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271F of the Act.

2.

The only issue is to be decided is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to hear ld. DR and pass order basing on material available on record.

4.

Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The contention of AO was that the assessee sold land/immovable property and got her share of Rs.48,33,334/-. She did not file return of income within specified time as required u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s. 271F initiated and imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s. 271F of the Act vide its order dated 15-04-2016. We note that the assessee contended before the CIT(A) that she is an agriculturist and illiterate lady. She did not file return of income having impression that she did not have income exceeding the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. The CIT(A) did not find the submissions of assessee as acceptable and confirmed the penalty imposed by the AO.

5.

The ld. DR vehemently contended that the assessee knew about her liability to pay tax on sale of agricultural land as she was assisted by professional doing accounting work and necessary compliance. The ld. DR referred para 6 of the CIT(A) order and argued that ignorance of law is no excuse and the assessee has to be vigilant towards her statutory duties and obligation and relied on the order of CIT(A). We find that on similar identical facts and issue this Tribunal disposed of an appeal connected to the assessee vide order dated 10-08-2020 in & 1599/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12 where in this Tribunal accepted the reasons given by the assessee therein and deleted the penalty imposed by taking into consideration the provisions u/s. 273B of the Act. For better understanding the relevant portion is reproduced here-in-below:

“3. We have heard the ld. DR through virtual court and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen from the impugned order that the assessee stated reasons before the ld. CIT(A) for not furnishing the return u/s.139(1) of the Act. Such reasons have been reproduced in para 5 of the impugned order. The reasons referred to the assessee being an agriculturist and illiterate; facing financial and family problems; under the impression that gain arising from sale of any agricultural land not chargeable to tax. When we consider the entirety of the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, it becomes apparent that there was reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing return u/s.139(1) of the Act, against which the penalty has been imposed and confirmed u/s.271F of the Act. Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed, inter alia, u/s.271F where the assessee establishes a reasonable cause for failure referred to in said section. In the given facts, we find that there was a reasonable cause with the assessee in the terms given in para 5 of the impugned order. This being the position, the case gets covered u/s. 273B of the Act. As such, we order to delete the penalty.”

6.

In view of the above, we cancel penalty confirmed by the CIT(A). Thus, the order of CIT(A) is not justified and it is set aside. The only ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th August, 2020.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 11th August, 2020. RK आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Nashik 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Nashik ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रतत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →