MUKESH PATHAK,TONK ROAD vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , ITO WARD6(2)

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 14-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming penalty amounting to Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F whereas the assessee was not required to file his return of income as per Section 39(1).

2 MUKESH PATHAK VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming tax Rs.311/- imposed (ITR accepted) by the AO but TDS of Rs.585/- has not been considered as per form 26A. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5. Decision : 5.1 The statement of fact, ground of appeal and the submission made by the appellant have been perused carefully. Brief facts of the case is that the income of the appellant was assessed at Rs.1,63,020/- on 03-10-2018 u/s 147/144 of the Act. Further, penalty amounting to Rs.5,000/- was imposed by the ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur on 29-03-2019 for failure to furnish return of income within the prescribed limit as per provision of Section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant vide submission dated 23-02-2023 has requested for relief on the ground that he is not liable for payment of any tax. ‘’As per return assessee has total income Rs.1,63,020/- and claimed TDS Rs.585/- and refund of Rs.270/- therefore, you are requested to drop the penalty u/s 271F for Rs.5,000/- as the assessee is not liable to pay tax.’’ 5.2 It is found from the ready reckoner that basic limit for taxation for the AY 2011-12 was Rs.1,60,000/- only. As income of the appellant exceeds the basic limit, he was mandatorily required to file return of income irrespective of the fact that TDS was already deducted and the appellant was not liable to pay any further tax. Therefore, penalty levied u/s 271F is upheld and the appellant appeal is dismissed.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’