SHRI SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

ITA 1391/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8678 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K L CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Valuation report
• Section: 271(1)(c); 54B; 50C; 54F; 10B; 54EC; 148; 54; 11; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT S/O SHIR CHOTHMAL KUMAWAT 8, DIGGI MALPURA ROAD, ASHOK VIHAR, SANGANER, JAIPUR- 302029 CUKE VS. ITO, WARD-7(2), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACTPL1259P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. L. CHOUDHARY (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/07/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/07/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-03, JAIPUR DATED 04.10.2018 FOR A.Y 2008-09. 2. IN ITA NO. 1390/JP/2018, THE LIMITED ISSUE INVOL VED IS DENIAL OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED AT PLOT NO. 184, MARUTI NAGAR, AIRPORT ROAD, SANGANER, JAIPUR VIDE SALE DEED DATED 29.11.2017 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,00,000/- WHICH WAS VALUED BY THE SUB- REGISTRAR (STAMPS) AT RS. 10,84,691/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE HIS ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 2 RETURN OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2015 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.01.2016 WHEREIN HE HAS CLAIM ED INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION A ND TRANSFER EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,47,411/- AND DEDUCTION U/S 54 AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,37,280/- AGAINST THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION U/S 50C AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,84,691/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,47,411/-. HOWEVER, DEDUCTION U/S 54 WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FRESH INVESTMENT IN THE PLOT SITUATED AT PLOT NO. 184, MARUTI NAGAR, AIRPORT ROAD, SANGANER, JAIP UR FOR RS. 7,16,638/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND SECONDLY, NO DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED I N SUPPORT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION THEREON. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEDU CTION CLAIMED U/S 54 AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,37,280/- WAS DENIED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PLOT OF LAND FOR RS. 7,1 6,638/- IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND SUCH INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT O F THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF THE ORIGINAL HOUSE PROPERTY. IN SUPPORT, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISIO N IN CASE OF SHRI VIVEK JAIN, JAIPUR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-07, JAIPUR (IN ITA NO. 139/JP/2016 DATED 08.12.2017) AND FOLLOWING OTHER DECISIONS:- MIR GULAM ALI KHAN VS. CIT 165 ITR 0228 (AP) CIT VS. NATARAJAN (2006) 203 CTR 0037 (MAD) CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL [2013] 351 ITR 4 (DELHI) CIT VS. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA [2012] 342 ITR 38 (DEL HI) ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 3 DIT VS. JENNIFER BHIDE [2012] 349 ITR 80 (KAR) 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE A SSESSEE CONSTRUCTED A SMALL RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE AFORES AID LAND AND INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/- ON ITS CONSTRU CTION OUT OF THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM SALE OF LAND. IN SUPPORT, A COP Y OF THE VALUATION REPORT WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN AN ELECTRIC CONNEC TION WHICH SHOWS CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND COPY OF THE FIRST ELECTRICITY BILL DATED 01.03.2008 WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD WHICH WA S NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ACCORDI NGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE FRESH INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF PLOT OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTIO N THEREON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY, T HE PLOT OF LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES WIFE A ND SECONDLY, NO PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS SU BMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T EVEN ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID VALUATION REPORT SO SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS NOT CLEAR IN TERMS OF THE TIME FRAM E WITHIN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT THE CONSTRUCTION AND WHETH ER THE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT WITHIN THE STIPUL ATED PERIOD. THE LD DR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 54 WHICH ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION READS AS UNDER: ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 4 54. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION ( 2), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HI NDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING BUILDINGS OR LANDS A PPURTENANT THERETO, AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE INCOME OF WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY' (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGI NAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLA CE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AF TER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA, T HEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISI ONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, (I) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS GREATER THAN T HE COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTE D (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW A SSET), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GA IN AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDE R SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSE T ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COST SHALL BE NIL; OR (II) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LE SS THAN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL N OT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL G AIN ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 5 ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, T HE COST SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN: 8. ON READING OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, IN ORDE R TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BY THE A SSESSEE IS THAT FIRSTLY, THERE SHOULD BE A TRANSFER OF A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET, BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS SOLD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON 29.11.2007 AND THE SAME IS THU S NOT UNDER DISPUTE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIO D OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRA NSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AF TER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND SIT UATED AT PLOT NO. 184, MARUTI NAGAR, AIRPORT ROAD, SANGANER, JAIPUR O N 5.11.2007 AND THEREAFTER, HAS CARRIED OUT CONSTRUCTION OF A R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEREON, WHICH AS PER VALUATION REPORT HAS BEEN CAR RIED OUT DURING THE YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALL OWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE FRESH INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE AND SE CONDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE COST OF CON STRUCTION. 9. AS FAR AS INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASS ESSEES WIFE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SHRI MAHADEV BALAI VS ITO AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT LENGTH BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CAS E OF SHRI VIVEK JAIN, JAIPUR VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER:- ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 6 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR REITER ATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, LD . AR ALSO DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO THE RECENT DECISION OF HONB LE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SH. MAHADEV BALAI V S. ITO (D.B. ITA NO. 136/2017 & OTHERS DATED 07.11.2017) W HEREIN IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 54B, IT WAS HELD THAT WHE RE THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE, THE ASS ESSEE SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICUL TURAL LAND AND PURCHASED ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 333/JP/201 6 DATED 26.12.2016 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJAST HAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF KALYA VS. CIT(SUPRA) HAD DECIDED T HE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HAS CONFIRMED THE DENIAL O F DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. IN THE CONTEXT OF SAI D FACTS, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS FRAMED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: WHERE LD. ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EX EMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE FUNDS UTILIZED FOR THE INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY ELIGIBL E U/S 54B BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT ONLY AND MERELY THE REGIS TERED DOCUMENT WAS EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE AND F URTHER THE WIFE HAD NOT SEPARATE SOURCE OF INCOME. 11. THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDE RING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN CASE OF KALYA VS. CIT(SUPRA) A ND THE VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT , HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, HO NBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, AND HONBLE ANDHRA P RADESH ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 7 HIGH COURT, AS ALSO RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, HA S HELD THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS TO INVEST AND IT IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE LEGISLATION THAT THE INVESTMENT IS TO BE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHERE THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN THE NA ME OF WIFE, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND HAS THUS DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ARE CO NTAINED AT PARA 7.2 AND 7.3 OF ITS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 7.2 ON THE GROUND OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF DE LHI HIGH COURT IN SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. AND OTHER JUDGMENTS OF D IFFERENT HIGH COURTS, THE WORD USED IS ASSESSEE HAS TO INVES T, IT IS NOT SPECIFIED THAT IT IS TO BE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. 7.3 IT IS TRUE THAT THE CONTENTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME BUT THE LEGISLATURE WHILE USING LANGUAGE HAS NOT USED SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WITH PRECIS ION AND THE SECOND REASON IS THAT VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT IT CAN BE IN THE NAME OF WIFE . IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED WITH REGARD TO SECTION 54B REGARDING INVESTMENT IN TUBEWELL AND OTHERS. IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON THE AGRICULTURAL ACT IVITY, TUBEWELL AND OTHER EXPENSES ARE FOR BETTERMENT OF L AND AND THEREFORE, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF INVESTME NT AND SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED. 12. IN LIGHT OF LEGAL PROPOSITION SO LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MAHADEV BALAI (SUPR A), WHERE THE INVESTMENT IN THE NEW HOUSE PROPERTY HAS FLOWN FROM THE ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 8 ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE IN THE INSTANT CA SE, MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPE RTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF HIS W IFE, THE SAME CANNOT BE BASIS FOR THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION CL AIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT. 10. THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISION THOUGH REN DERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, GIVEN THE SIMILA RITY OF LANGUAGE EMPLOYED, WILL EQUALLY APPLY IN THE INSTANT CASE IN CONTEXT OF SECTION 54. FURTHER, THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH CO URT IN CASE OF CIT VS. NATARAJAN (SUPRA) RENDERED IN CONTEXT OF SE CTION 54 SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, MERE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE CA NNOT BE A REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 11. REGARDING THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION, THE SA ME IS SUPPORTED BY THE VALUATION REPORT WHERE THE VALUER HAS DETERM INED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS 250481/-. 12. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ITA NO. 1391/JP/2018 14. NOW COMING TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1391/JP/2018 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 9 15. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED T HE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF DENIAL OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE U/S 54 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 1390/JP/201 8 WHEREIN WE HAVE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 5 4, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE , IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ITA NO. 1392/JP/2018 17. IN THIS APPEAL, THE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGE D THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271F OF THE ACT. 18. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BELIEF THAT SINCE HIS INCOME DURING THE P REVIOUS YEAR DID NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS CHARGEABLE T O INCOME TAX, HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HE ACCORDINGLY DIDNT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE PENALTY SO LEVIED MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN SUPPORT, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA VS. CITADEL FINE PHARMACEUTICAL AND ORS., 184 ITR 447 NOBLE PICTURES VS. JCIT, 90 ITD 248 (COCHIN) 19. THE LD DR DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT HIS RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HE FAILED TO FILE IN THE SPE CIFIED TIME FRAME AS PRESCRIBED AND THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R IGHTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271F FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 10 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 271F PROVIDES THAT WHE RE A PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME, AS R EQUIRED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OR BY THE PROVISOS TO TH AT SUB-SECTION, FAILS TO FURNISH SUCH RETURN BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PE RSON SHALL PAY, BY WAY OF PENALTY, A SUM OF FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES. 21. SECTION 139(1)(B) PROVIDES THAT EVERY PERSON, B EING A PERSON OTHER THAN A COMPANY OR A FIRM, IF HIS TOTAL INCOME OR THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE I S ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDED TH E MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE, FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN THE PRESC RIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. FURTHER, BY WAY OF SIXTH PROVISO, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL INCOM E HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITHOUT GIVEN EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: PROVIDED ALSO THAT EVERY PERSON, BEING AN INDIVIDU AL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OR AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR A BODY OF INDIVIDUALS, WHETHER INCORPORATED OR NOT, OR AN ARTIFICIAL JURIDICAL PERSON, IF HIS TOTAL INCOME OR THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE U NDER THIS ACT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (38) OF SECTION 10 OR SECTION 10A OR SECTION 10B OR SECTION 10BA OR SECTION 54 OR SECTIO N 54B OR SECTION 54D OR SECTION 54EC OR SECTION 54F OR SECTI ON 54G OR ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 11 SECTION 54GA OR SECTION 54GB OR CHAPTER VI-A EXCEED ED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TA X, SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE, FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIB ED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. 22. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCO ME WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54 COME TO RS 9, 37,280/- WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO FURNISH HIS RETURN OF INC OME AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY REASONABLE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE FOR SUCH FAILURE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THE PENALTY U /S 271F IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OFF IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DIRECTIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/07/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21/07/2020. *GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT ITA. NO. 1390, 1391 & 1392/JP/2018 SH. SHANKAR LAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 12 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA. NO. 1390, 1391, 1392/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR