GOBARDHAN MATIA vs. ACIT, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 574/CTK/2013Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 September 2022AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was required to file a return within 30 days of a Section 153A notice, the delay in obtaining seized documents provided a valid ground for non-filing. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file their return of income because they were in the process of collecting copies of seized documents. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271F, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in obtaining seized documents constitutes a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income within the prescribed time, thereby warranting deletion of penalty under Section 271F.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271F,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AR
For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Pronounced: 22/9

Gobardhan Gobardhan Matia, Matia, At/PO: At/PO: Vs. ACIT, Circle ACIT, Circle -1(2), Balda, Joda, Keonjhar Balda, Joda, Keonjhar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AAWPM 1358 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Mishra, AR Sunil Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 22 /9 9/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 22/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These are These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar both 1, Bhubaneswar both dated 30.10.2013 in Appeal No in Appeal Nos.243/11-12 & 244/11-12 against confirmation of levy of penalty u/s.271F of the Act against confirmation of levy of penalty u/s.271F of the Act against confirmation of levy of penalty u/s.271F of the Act for the assessment year the assessment years 2008-09 & 2009-10 .

2.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee was in the process of It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee was in the process of It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee was in the process of collecting the copy of the seized documents. It was submitted that collecting the copy of the seized documents. It was submitted that collecting the copy of the seized documents. It was submitted that consequently, the assessee had not filed the return of income. It was the the assessee had not filed the return of income. It was the prayer that the penalty as levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) prayer that the penalty as levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) prayer that the penalty as levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) may be deleted. may be deleted.

P a g e 1 | 3 & 574/CTK/2013 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10

3.

In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that the issue was covered against the assessee by the decision of this Co-ordinate bench in the case of Seerajudin & Co. in & 576/CTK/2013 order dated 25.10.2019, wherein, the penalty u/s.271F of the Act has been confirmed by the Tribunal. It was further submitted that in para 4 of the order of the ld CIT(A), the ld CIT(A) has categorically given a finding that there has been no deficiency in service of notices and the AO has proper jurisdiction for issue of notice u/s.153A of the Act. He also submitted that the ld CIT(A) has given categorical finding that Xerox copies of the seized documents have been given to the assessee within 2-3 months. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) was liable to be upheld.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. The levy/confirmation of penalty is based on the facts of each case. There is no presumption that the assessee is willfully violating the law. It is an admitted fact that notice u/s.153A has been served on the assessee and the assessee is required to file the return within 30 days. It is also an admitted fact that for obtaining of the Xerox copies of the seized document, it took more than 2-3 months. Just by obtaining of xerox copies of seized documents, the return cannot be filed. It has to be co-related, verified, examined and reconciled before the return is filed. The filing of return beyond the due date is admittedly invalid return as there is no provision for filing the return belatedly once notice u/s. 153A has been issued. This being so, we are of the view that P a g e 2 | 3 & 574/CTK/2013 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 the assessee had a valid ground for non-filing of return. Accordingly, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) is deleted.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22/9/2022.

Sd/-` sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 22/9/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. The Appellant : Gobardhan Matia, At/PO: Balda, Joda, Keonjhar 2. The Respondent: ACIT, Circle -1(2), Bhubaneswar.

3. The CIT(A)-1,. Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaenswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3

More judgments on Section 271F

All 927 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →