9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 15/03/2019 for the Assessment year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Learned CIT(A) confirming the order of the Learned AO is not correct as per the law, facts, different pronouncements and for other reasons for taking the penalty of Rs. 5000 under Section 271F. 2. The Learned CIT(A ) has failed to provide the opportunity to reply the notice before finalization of order. This has happened due to failure of the system. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to pass the order early and not kept in abeyance till passing the order first to delete the addition 11,60,194/- (quantum appeal). 4. The order of learned CIT(A) is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed to waive the penalty proceedings. The reply of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer by holding that the assessee has not filed return of income as required under sub-section (1) of Section 139 before end of the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 271F of the Act vide his order dated 15/03/2019. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty under Section 271F, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Surat. The appeal was transferred to NFAC New Delhi and was decided on 01/09/2021 by confirming the order of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that the intention of legislation is to encourage for filing return of income within due d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 3 SOT 414 (Kol). (ii) R.S. Investment Vs. ITO (2011) 15 taxmann.com 270 (Delhi) (iii) NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ 292 (Delhi) 5. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue has vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. There is no dispute that the assessee has not filed return of income within due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12. It is matter of fact that the assessee filed return of income belatedly on 02/10/2012. Copy of acknowledgement of return is placed on record. On perusal of acknowledgement, we find that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
