MUKESH PATHAK, TONK ROAD V. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , ITO WARD6(2)

ITA 294/JPR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mukesh Pathak, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 6(2), Jaipur, for not filing his income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee's income exceeded the basic taxable limit of Rs. 1,60,000, thus mandating the filing of a return. The Tribunal, however, set aside the penalty, acknowledging the assessee's claim of having a bona fide belief that he was not required to file the return as his income was just above the taxable limit and considering that there was no loss to the revenue as TDS had been deducted and tax paid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132110 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside
• Section: 139(1); 13

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh laanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 294/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Mukesh Pathak 90, Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur – 302 018 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 6(2) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKLPP 7944 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Jain, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/07/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 13/07/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 14-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming penalty amounting to Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F whereas the assessee was not required to file his return of income as per Section 39(1). 2 ITA NO. 294/JP/2023 MUKESH PATHAK VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming tax Rs.311/- imposed (ITR accepted) by the AO but TDS of Rs.585/- has not been considered as per form 26A. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5. Decision : 5.1 The statement of fact, ground of appeal and the submission made by the appellant have been perused carefully. Brief facts of the case is that the income of the appellant was assessed at Rs.1,63,020/- on 03-10-2018 u/s 147/144 of the Act. Further, penalty amounting to Rs.5,000/- was imposed by the ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur on 29-03-2019 for failure to furnish return of income within the prescribed limit as per provision of Section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant vide submission dated 23-02-2023 has requested for relief on the ground that he is not liable for payment of any tax. ‘’As per return assessee has total income Rs.1,63,020/- and claimed TDS Rs.585/- and refund of Rs.270/- therefore, you are requested to drop the penalty u/s 271F for Rs.5,000/- as the assessee is not liable to pay tax.’’ 5.2 It is found from the ready reckoner that basic limit for taxation for the AY 2011-12 was Rs.1,60,000/- only. As income of the appellant exceeds the basic limit, he was mandatorily required to file return of income irrespective of the fact that TDS was already deducted and the appellant was not liable to pay any further tax. Therefore, penalty levied u/s 271F is upheld and the appellant appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 3 ITA NO. 294/JP/2023 MUKESH PATHAK VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the same arguments as made before the lower authorities and thus prayed to delete the penalty 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 The Bench has heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the records, it is noticed that the assessee was required to file the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act which he failed to do so. Therefore, after the initiation of reopening proceedings and while passing order of assessment the AO was of the opinion that the assessee was liable for penalty. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) found from the ready reckoner that basic limit for taxation for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 was amounting to Rs.1.60 lacs and the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.163,020/- on 3-10-2018 by the AO u/s 144/147 of the Act. Therefore, according to the Revenue, the assessee is liable for penalty. In this regard, the ld. AR of the assesseee reiterated the same arguments as was raised by him before the lower authorities and further submitted that he was under bona fide belief that he was not required to file the return as his income was below the basic limit. Apart from this, it was also submitted that the assessee had claimed TDS of Rs.585/- and refund of Rs.270/-. Thus, in this way, there is no loss to revenue on account of bona fide mistake on the part of the Revenue by not filing the return. After having gone through the facts of the case meticulously and 4 ITA NO. 294/JP/2023 MUKESH PATHAK VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR keeping in view the defence put forth by the assessee and taking into consideration the bona fide mistake as explained and also considering the fact that there was no loss to the revenue as proper tax has already been deposited by the assessee. Therefore, taking the liberal view of the matter in the peculiar circumstances, the penalty of Rs.5,000/- u/s 271F is set aside and consequently, the appeal of the assessee allowed. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 /07/2023. Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Sandeep Gosain) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13 /07/2023 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Mukesh Pathak, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 6(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 294/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar