MOHMAD SALIM ABDUL KARIM MAYA,JAMNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(5), JAMNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no taxable income and no requirement to file a return, the penalty levied under Section 271F was not sustainable and should be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, had no taxable income for AY 2010-11 and therefore did not file a return. A scrutiny assessment determined income on an estimate basis, which was later reduced by the CIT(A) to below the taxable limit.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271F is leviable when there is no obligation to file a return of income due to no taxable income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal
आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:-
Page No 2 Mohmad Salim Abdul Karim Maya vs. ITO
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar, in Appeal no. CIT(A)- Jam/513/18-19/254 vide order dated 28/05/2019 passed for the assessment year 2010-11.
The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The Income Tax officer has erred on facts and in law in levying penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in laws in confirming the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or withdraw one or more ground of appeal.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual and assessed to tax with Income Tax Officer, ward 3(5), Jamnagar. The assessee passed away on 02/01/2021. The assessee was retired and during the year under consideration assessee had undertaken some transaction in share market. No other economical activities were carried out by the assessee. The assessee had no taxable income. Therefore, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Scrutiny assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was completed on Page No 3 Mohmad Salim Abdul Karim Maya vs. ITO 19/12/2017 and the ld. A.O. determined total income at Rs. 3,01,260/- on estimate basis. Being aggrieved with the Assessing Officer, the assessee had preferred appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Jamnagar. After giving effect of CIT(A) order, income of the assessee was reduced to Rs. 1,01,260/- which was below taxable. As per appeal effect order dated 04/07/2017 there is no tax payable. Notice of demand u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing NIL demand was issued to the assessee.
Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when there is no taxable income there is no need to file return of income. Accordingly in the instant case there is no need to file return of income. The assessee further submitted that when there is no need to file income tax return there is no room for levy penalty u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, penalty levied u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has no legal legs to stand and requires to deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that that penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has also been deleted by Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jamnagar vide order No. CIT(A)/Jam/511/18-19/254 dated 28/05/2019. In response, Ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the observations made in the CIT(A) order.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that after the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the income of the assessee was below taxable limit. Accordingly, in the instant Page No 4 Mohmad Salim Abdul Karim Maya vs. ITO facts, there was no requirement to file return of income as well. Accordingly, in our considered view, this is a fit case for deletion of penalty under section 271F of the Act.
Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Penalty under section 271F of the Act is directed to be deleted.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14-09-2022
More judgments on Section 271F
- Anuragraiji Vallabhraiji Goswai, Surat vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), SuratITA 643/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2008-09
- Krunal Bharat Bha vs Ar, Ahmedabadvs.the Income Tax Officer…ITA 332/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Faiz Ala Faizi, Bangalore vs I.T.O., Ward - 54(2), KolkataITA 1374/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Imran Khan, Chandigarh vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals…ITA 689/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Imran Khan, Manimajra vs The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals…ITA 688/CHANDI/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026