AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(5), MOHALI, MOHALI

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos.962 & 964/CHD/2024 A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 2

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that assessee failed to file his return of income in both these years, therefore, he has been visited with penalty of Rs.5000/- in each assessment year. The case of the assessee is that he is an agriculturist who was not required to file return of income because he has no taxable income. However, we find that both these assessments have been reopened by the AO on the ground that assessee has made deposits in cash in his bank account. The quantum addition has been set aside by the ITAT to the file of ld. CIT (Appeals) vide &1439/CHD/2019 assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12. Thus, it is not ascertainable whether any taxable income was available in the hands of the assessee for which he was required to file a return of income. Upto and until this aspect is being decided by CIT (Appeals), assessee does not deserve to be visited with penalty u/s 271F. Therefore, we set aside both the orders and restore this issue to the file of AO. The ld. AO will explore the issue after the adjudication of appeal by the CIT (Appeals). & 964/CHD/2024 A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 3

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.