Home Income tax Corporate Income tax Delhi ITAT Cancels Penalty U/S 271F, Did not Show Legal responsibility for ITR Submitting

Delhi ITAT Cancels Penalty U/S 271F, Did not Show Legal responsibility for ITR Submitting

0
Delhi ITAT Cancels Penalty U/S 271F, Did not Show Legal responsibility for ITR Submitting
Delhi ITAT's Order for Sheel Agarwal

The Delhi bench of the income-tax appellate tribunal (ITAT) has issued a constructive resolution in favour of an 83-year-old widow who was not required to file her IT return. The high quality levied on her for failing to file her tax return was put aside by the tax tribunal.

This Gurgaon-based 80-year-old had by no means filed an I.T. return as a result of she was a homemaker and had no taxable earnings, so it’s comprehensible that she was shocked to obtain a requirement for Rs. 5,000 as a penalty for lacking the deadline to file the ITR underneath the previous part 271F of the I.T. Act. This motion was made in relation to the 2011–2012 fiscal 12 months. Even worse, the commissioner (appeals) failed to offer clear directions on this penalty.

It needs to be famous that as of April 1, 2018, part 234 F’s provisions have taken the place of these present in part 271F. The present high quality for submitting an I-T return after the deadline is Rs 5,000 (or Rs 1,000 for small taxpayers whose complete earnings doesn’t exceed Rs 5 lakh). She made the courageous resolution to have interaction in fight. She argued earlier than the ITAT that the evaluation order underneath part 144 and part 147 of the I-T Act was incorrectly framed by the I-T officer. The best course of wasn’t adopted. The analysis is completed in accordance with the I-T workplace’s “greatest judgment” based mostly on the proof at hand, and orders granted underneath this provision are ex-parte.

Later, although she had appealed this resolution and claimed that she was exempt from submitting a return for the in query monetary 12 months, the Commissioner for Appeals didn’t take this into consideration as a part of the impersonal appeals course of. She knowledgeable the ITAT that this order was unconstitutional for various causes.

She emphasised that the part 271F penalty is advisory somewhat than compulsory. The penalty order was arbitrarily issued, unconstitutional, and with out jurisdiction since she had a “affordable trigger” for not submitting the I-T return.

The language of the order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) was examined by the two-person ITAT bench, which was made up of C M Garg, a member of the judiciary department, and B R R Kumar, an accountant. The I-T officer could have waived the penalty in accordance with part 271F, however the sentence lacks any specifics. In its ruling final month, the ITAT court docket quashed the Rs 5,000 high quality and said, “We discover the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is approbated and reprobate with none rhyme or purpose.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here