RAMDAS DHANAJI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 449/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 October 2022AY 2012-125 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 COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, making the penalty provisions inapplicable. The delay in filing appeals was also condoned based on the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the pandemic.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to comply with notices issued under section 142(1) and did not furnish returns as required under section 153C. The reasons provided for non-compliance were the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on office operations.

What were the issues?

Whether the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance with statutory notices and filing requirements, and whether delays in filing appeals due to the pandemic should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing
  • 432 ITR 206
    432 ITR 206 · 2020 · SC
    182 citing
  • 421 ITR 314
    421 ITR 314 · SC
    172 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sasar
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP :

1.

This batch of nine appeals has five appeals against the confirmation of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) in relation to the A.Yrs.

2012-13 to 2016-17; and four appeals against the confirmation of penalty u/s.271F for the A.Yrs. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18. For sake of convenience, we have clubbed all the appeals for disposal by a consolidated order.

2 Ramdas Dhanaji Dhankude

2.

The appeals against the order imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(b) revolve around the facts that a search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was carried out in the case of one Sh Baburao D Chandere and others on 19-12-2017. Residence of the assessee was also covered within this search. A common notice u/s.142(1) was issued for all the years along with a detailed questionnaire requiring the assessee to submit the necessary details by 01-02-2021. The assessee filed a letter dated 09-02-2021 submitting that the information, documents and data required for the submissions were under compilation and due to Covid-19 pandemic, office of the assessee was not functioning at full capacity. The AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s.271(1)(b) for failure to comply with the notice issued u/s.142(1) for each of the year under consideration. Such penalty was affirmed in the first appeal, against which the assessee has approached the Tribunal.

3.

Having heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen as an admitted position that the assessee did not comply with the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. However, the reason for such non-compliance, as put forth before the AO, was the prevalence of Covid-19 pandemic

3 Ramdas Dhanaji Dhankude and the resultant disturbance due to non-working of the assessee’s office at full capacity. Section 271(1)(b) is subject to section 273B. The latter section provides that penalty under various sections, including section 271(1)(b), may be deleted where a ‘reasonable cause’ is established for failure to comply. Adverting to the facts of the extant case, we find that the assessee had a ‘reasonable cause’ of the prevalence of covid-19 pandemic for not complying with the requirements of the AO called for by means of notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. We, therefore, order to delete the penalty imposed for all the years under consideration.

4.

The appeals against the penalty u/s.271F are time barred by 01 day each. The ld. AR submitted that the delay period pertains to Covid-19 pandemic and hence, covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 where the Hon’ble Apex Court took a suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenges faced by the country on account of COVID-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that could be faced by the litigants across the country and accordingly extended the time limit for 4 Ramdas Dhanaji Dhankude filing of the appeals. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the instant appeals and admit them for disposal on merits.

5.

The AO imposed penalty u/s.271F of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not furnish his return for the relevant years pursuant to notice u/s.153C. Penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed for each of the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the penalty by observing that the assessee did not furnish any return till the passing of the impugned order. On the contrary, the ld. AR has brought to our notice, with relevant evidence, that all the returns were filed on 09-02-2021 as against the impugned order dated 30-07-2021. The assessee submitted similar reason for non-compliance, being, the prevalence of Covid-19 pandemic making it hard to file the returns in time. Following the view taken hereinabove accepting the reasonableness of the cause, we delete the instant penalties for the years under consideration.

6.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th day of October, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →