SATINDER PAL,NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD 34(5), CIVIC CENTRE

ITA 3307/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Satinder Pal against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for not filing his income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16. The ITO had imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that he believed his income was below the taxable limit, and thus, he was not required to file a return. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the small amount of the penalty, agreed with the assessee and deleted the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31678 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief
• Section: 144; 250; 139(1); 69A; 273B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NO. 3307/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2015-16 SATINDER PAL, HOUSE NO. 1728, BLOCK-K, JAHANGIR PURI, NEW DELHI – 33 (PAN: CATPP4704P) VS. ITO, WARD 34(5), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 21.02.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 16.05.2024, relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order dated 16.5.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Act sustaining the order dated 7.8.2023 passed u/s. 271F of the Act is exfacie illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and therefore, deserves to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no penalty u/s. 271F of the act could be levied on the assessee, since, the assessee was acting on the basis of his bonafide belief that his income for the 2 | P a g e relevant assessment year under consideration was below the taxable limit and therefore, the case of the assesse is squarely covered by section 273B of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was completed on 20.2.2023, after making the addition of Rs. 55,03,314/- on account of unexplained cash deposit u/s. 69A of the Act. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271F of the Act, issued notice u/s. 271F of the Act on 20.2.2023 for non filing of original return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. AO noted that the assessee has non-responsive and not complied in response to the show cause notices, which shows that assessee has nothing to say in his defence. Therefore, the AO noted that since the assessee has failed to file his return of income before the end of the relevant assessment year and thus liable for penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for AY 2015-16. Accordingly, he imposed the penalty u/s. 271F of the Act of Rs. 5,000/-. Against the above action of the AO, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 16.5.2024 has affirmed the aforesaid action of the AO. 3. Against the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, assessee is in appeal before me. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing, hence, I am proceeding the appeal exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 5. On careful consideration of the grounds of appeal, I find considerable cogency in the contention of the assessee raised in ground no. 2 that the assessee was acting on the basis of his bonafide belief that his income for the relevant assessment year under consideration was below the taxable limit and therefore, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by section 273B of the Act and not filed the return of income. In view of the factual matrix and keeping in view the smallness of the amount of the impugned penalty, I deem it fit and proper to 3 | P a g e delete the penalty in dispute for which Ld. DR has no objection. Accordingly, the both the grounds raised by the Assessee stand allowed. 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 21/02/2025. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR Bhatnagar Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "