ANURAGRAIJI VALLABHRAIJI GOSWAI,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 643/SRT/2024Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 October 2026AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not file any return under Section 139 for AY 2008-09. In response to a notice under Section 148, the assessee filed a return on 30.10.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,41,360/- and paid self-assessment tax and interest of Rs. 6,010/-. The Tribunal noted that the declared total income of Rs. 1,41,360/- was above the exemption limit for AY 2008-09. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to file the return mandatorily required under Section 139. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271F was rightly levied by the Ld. AO. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. AO and accordingly dismissed the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswami, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, against the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi. This order upheld the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2(2)(1), Surat, under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied for the assessment year (AY) 2008-09 due to the assessee's failure to file a return of income under Section 139 for that year. The penalty order was passed by the Ld. AO on 21.09.2016. The assessee had subsequently filed a return of income in response to a notice under Section 148.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failure to file a return of income under Section 139 for AY 2008-09 is sustainable, considering the assessee's contention that the total income was below the taxable limit. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that their total income was below the taxable limit for AY 2008-09, and therefore, filing a return under Section 139 was not mandatory. They further submitted that upon receiving a notice under Section 148, they promptly filed a return, and thus, the penalty should not be levied. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Ld. AO and subsequently upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), contended that a penalty under Section 271F was rightly imposed due to the failure to file the mandatory return under Section 139. The revenue's stance implicitly relies on the fact that a return was not filed voluntarily.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271F,Section 139,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh B Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash Jha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

Feeling aggrieved by the order of first appeal dated 10.05.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the penalty-order dated 21.09.2016 passed by learned ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Surat [“Ld. AO”] u/s 271F of the Act for assessment-year [“AY”] 2008-09, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2.

In this case, the assessee is aggrieved by the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 271F imposed by Ld. AO for assessee’s failure to file return u/s 139 for AY 2008-09. Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswami

3.

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the total income of assessee wa

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271F

All 927 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →