Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The ld. AR further submitted that from plain reading of the section it is evident that penalty u/s 271F can be levied if a person has failed to furnish the return required u/s 139(1) of the Act. In the present case, assessee has filed the return on 27.09.2013 which is within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The return u's 148 could not be furnished as just after the issue of notice us 148 dt. 18.03.2020, the entire country was grappling with Covid2019 and this notice did not come to the knowledge of assessee till the assessmentorder was passed on 29.09.2021. Thus there is a reasonable cause for not filing thereturn in response to notice u/s 148. Hence, simply because of non filing of return u/s148, penalty cannot be imposed u/s 271F of the Act particularly when the originalreturn was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. To this effect, the ld. AR relied upon Hon'ble Supreme ITA NO. 545/JP/2023 SMT. MANJEET KAUR VS ITO, WARD 1 (1), ALWAR Court in case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa in (1972)83 ITR 26 wherein at Para 5 of the order held that "an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty whenthere is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute''.Hence only because of non compliance of notice issued u/s 148, penalty imposed us 271F is unjustified and the same be directed to be deleted. 5.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The main issue in this case is that the AO imposed penalty u/s 271F ITA NO. 545/JP/2023 SMT. MANJEET KAUR VS ITO, WARD 1 (1), ALWAR amounting to Rs.5,000/- on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld.

CIT(A). In this case, the submission of the assessee is that penalty u/s 271F can be levied if a person has failed to furnish the return required u/s 139(1) of the Act. In the present case, assessee has filed the return on 27.09.2013 which is within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The return u/s 148 could not be furnished as just after the issue of notice us 148 dt. 18.03.2020, the entire country was grappling with Covid2019 and this notice did not come to the knowledge of assessee till the assessmentorder was passed on 29.09.2021. Thus there is a reasonable cause for not filing the return in response to notice u/s 148. Hence, simply because of non filing of return u/s148, penalty cannot be imposed u/s 271F of the Act particularly when the originalreturn was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Bench has taken into consideration the view of the ld. AR of the assessee but it is imperative on the part of the AO enquire whether the assessee has filed the return of income u/s 139 of the Act being grappled under COVID 19 and if the fact is found genuine then the AO will grant relief to the assessee in accordance with the law as discussed here in above. Hence, this appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO decide as per direction given hereinabove.