Smt Sunita Shivhare, Betul V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(centry)1, Bhopal

ITSSA 3/JAB/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3384 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. No. 03/JAB/2021 (Asst. Year: 2013-14) Appellant by : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCA Respondent by : Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr.DR Date of hearing : 27/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 29/07/2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order dated 01/06/2021 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal (‘CIT(A)’, for short) confirming the penalty under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) levied for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 vide order dated 20/04/2018. 2. The only issue arising in this appeal is maintainability or otherwise in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, of the penalty levied u/s. 271F of the Act by the Assessing Officer (AO), since confirmed in first appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Sunita Shivhare, Civil Lines, Betul (MP) [PAN : BDGPS 4272 Q] vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)-1, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 03/JAB/2021 (A.Y. 2013-14) Sunita Shivhare v. Dy. CIT 2 | P a g e 3.1 The assessee before us contends of the medical condition of her husband Shri Ranjit Shivhare, which ultimately led to his kidney transplant in 2020, as the reason for the non-filing of the return for the time available under the Act is 31/3/2015 (s. 139(4)), even as documents to that effect, it was claimed by Sh. Ghai, the ld. counsel for the assessee, were not readily available. The same, coupled with the search on the assessee and her family on 07/01/2016, it is claimed, had put things in a complete disarray. The ld. Sr. DR would, on the other hand, rely on the impugned orders; the assessee failing to furnish any explanation for the admitted default in non-filing the return of income for the relevant year, while choosing not to avail of the opportunities of hearing before the first appellate authority. 3.2 Apart from the fact that no case has made out before us which, where so, would be de hors the material on record, we find no merit in the assessee’s claims. The last date of filing of return for the relevant assessment year, i.e. even belatedly, which would attracts penalty u/s. 271F, is 31/03/2015. Filing the return by that date would have admittedly saved penalty u/s. 271F, which penalises an assessee for delayed or non-furnishing the return of income, of course, subject to reasonable cause being not proved. The assessee, by own admission, filed the return for the following year, i.e., AY 2014-15, the due date for which is, as stated, 31/08/2014, in time. How could, then, she possibly plead a reasonable cause for not furnishing the return for relevant year even by 31/03/2015. Further, still, it is apparent that the assessee, a business person in liqour business (assessment order on record/ PB pgs. 1-16), is conducting her business, maintaining regular books of accounts, for the relevant year as well as the following year, filing of return in wherein would have saved penalty. The assessment order, thus, disproves the assessee’s case. The date of search as well as the pandemic of Covid-19, also canvassed before us as the reasons for non-furnishing the return, fall in subsequent periods, and are thus irrelevant. ITA No. 03/JAB/2021 (A.Y. 2013-14) Sunita Shivhare v. Dy. CIT 3 | P a g e 4. In view of the foregoing, we find no reasonable cause having been shown, much less proved by the assessee saving the impugned penalty. We, accordingly, find no reason to interfere and decline to. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in open Court on July 29, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29/07/2022 vr/- Copy to: 1. The Appellant: Sunita Shivhare, Civil Lines, Betul (MP) 2. The Respondent: DCI T (C entral-1), Bhopal 3. The Principal CI T (Central), Bhopal 4. The CI T( Appeals)-3, Bhopal. 5. The Sr .D.R., ITAT, Jabalpur. 6. Guard file. By order (VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Jabalpur.