Usha Vitthal Kharate, Nashik V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3, Nashik

ITA 1606/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9210 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATHAMESH J LAWAND
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Ignorance of law; Set aside
• Section: 273B; 201; 139(1); 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO . 1606 /PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 12 USHA VITTHAL KHARATE, POOJA ROW HOUSE NO. B - 2, VIDYA NAGAR, MAKHMALABAD, NASHIK 422003 PAN : BGHPK9776M ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 , NASHIK / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : SHRI PRATHAMESH J. LAWAND / DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 08 - 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 - 0 8 - 2020 / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29 - 05 - 2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK [CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 12 WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 271F OF THE ACT. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2 ITA NO . 1606/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011 - 12 3. WE FIND NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FILED SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSEE CALLED ABSENT AND SET EX - PARTE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO HEAR LD. DR AND PASS ORDER BASING ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD LAND/IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND GOT HER SHARE OF RS.48,33,334/ - . SHE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME AS REQUIRED U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271F INITIATED AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.5,000/ - U/S. 271F OF THE ACT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15 - 04 - 2016. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT SHE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND IL LITERATE LADY. SHE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME HAVING IMPRESSION THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE INCOME EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE CIT(A) DID NOT FIND THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AS ACCEPTABLE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. 5. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE KNEW ABOUT HER LIABILITY TO PAY TAX ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS SHE WAS ASSIST ED BY PROFESSIONAL DOING ACCOUNTING WORK AND NECESSARY COMPLIANCE. THE LD. DR REFERRED PARA 6 OF THE CIT(A) ORDE R AND ARGUED THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE VIGILANT TOWARDS HER STATUTORY DUTIES AND OBLIGATION AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUE THIS TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OF AN APPEAL CONNEC TED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 10 - 08 - 2020 IN ITA NO S. 1594 & 1599/PUN/2017 FOR A.Y . 2011 - 12 WHERE IN THIS TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN AND DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROVISIONS U/S. 27 3 B OF THE ACT. FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODUCED HERE - IN - BELOW: 3 ITA NO . 1606/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011 - 12 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE STATED REASO NS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR NOT FURNISHING THE RETURN U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. SUCH REASONS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE REASONS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE BEING AN AGRICULTURIST AND ILLITERATE; FACING FINANCIAL AND FAMILY PROBLEM S; UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. WHEN WE CONSIDER THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN THIS CASE, IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING RETURN U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT, AGAINST WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED AND CONFIRMED U/S.271F OF THE ACT. SECTION 273B PROVIDES THAT NO PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED, INTER ALIA, U/S.271F WHERE THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES A REASONABLE CAUS E FOR FAILURE REFERRED TO IN SAID SECTION. IN THE GIVEN FACTS, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE TERMS GIVEN IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER . THIS BEING THE POSITION, THE CASE GETS COVERED U/S. 273B OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, W E ORDER TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CANCEL PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IT IS SET ASIDE. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.S. SYAL ) ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 11 TH AUGUST, 2020. RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 1 , NASHIK 4. THE PR. CIT - 1, NASHIK 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE