9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven in the representation dated 19.05.2015, was found to be acceptable by the first respondent, and there is no finding that the representation is false, while entertaining the request for furnishing the photostat copies of the seized/impounded documents. Therefore, if for such purpose, the cause pleaded by the petitioner was found to be reasonable and consequently their plea that they were unable to file return of income due to certain factors, this yardstick can also be made applicable and extended while considering a proposal to levy penalty under Section 271F. Therefore, if a cause was found to be reasonable and for non-filing of return immediately in response to notice under Section 153A, this Court finds that such cause can also be construed as a reasonable cause, while considering as to whether penalty has to be levied under Section 271F. Therefore, the cause expressed by the petitioner is found to be a reasonable cause and the explanation merits acceptance. With regard to the other allegations made by the petitioner as against the officer in her personal capacity, does not merit acceptance, as it appears to be vague allegation, in any event those allegations are not ger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellate Authority. 4. Earlier, the first respondent initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271F of the Act on 30.12.2015, by issuing a notice under Section 271F of the Act. In response there to, the petitioner/assessee filed her return of income for the relevant assessment years admitting income under different levels for the respective assessment years. When the earlier Writ Petitions were pending before this Court, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent stating that she has filed the return of income and assessment orders have been passed and, hence the penalty proceedings initiated may be dropped. Though the representation dated 23.05.2016 was given to the Assessing Officer, it appears that no action was immediately taken and the impugned orders were passed after the earlier Writ Petitions were dismissed by order dated 23.06.2016. 5. Mr.A.E.Chelliah learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned proceedings is unfair and tainted with malafide and the first respondent ought to have considered that the petitioner and her husband filed the Writ Petitions, questioning the manner in which, the Officer was functioning and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the petitioner did not file the returns and therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271F was initiated and it is only thereafter the petitioner filed her return of income admitting taxable income for the above referred assessment years. It is further submitted that Section 275 of the Act imposes the time period for imposing penalties and the petitioner's case falls under Section 275(1)(c), as it has to be completed by the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which, action for imposing of penalty was initiated or within six months from the end of the month, from which the action of penalty is initiated. It is therefore, submitted that penalty proceedings were initiated by issuing notice dated 30.12.2015, and the time period for completing the same expires on 30.06.2016 and accordingly, the impugned order was passed on 27.06.2016 and this has got nothing to do with the dismissal of the Writ Petition. Further, it is submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, as there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioner and in support of such contention reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Nivaram Pharma Private Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he end of the relevant assessment year, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five thousand rupees; Section 273B deals with penalty not to be imposed in certain cases, it states that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 271, Section 271A, Section 271AA, Section 271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, etc., no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision, if he proves that there was a reasonable cause for that failure. Section 271F was inserted in Section 273B by Finance Act, 1997, w.e.f., 01.04.1997, which is much prior to the assessment years in question. 11. Therefore, it has to be seen as to what would be reasonable cause for being entitled to the protection under Section 273B. The meaning of the expression reasonable cause could be culled out from certain decisions, which arises under Section 271 of the Act. In CIT vs. Padmanabhan. S., reported in 2006-284-ITR-535 (Kar), where the return was filed pursuant to seizure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owledge of the first respondent, even at the time, when notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued. It is not as if, immediately thereafter, proceedings under Section 271F were initiated, but in the interregnum, the petitioner's representation dated 19.05.2015, was taken note of. The first respondent records in her order that in the representation, it was specifically stated that they could not file their return due to ill-health and consequent surgery. 17. That apart, the first respondent records that there is a request for furnishing the photocopies of the documents, which were seized/impounded during the search. This request made by the petitioner's/husband's letter dated 19.05.2015, was complied with on 02.06.2015. Thus, the fact that the petitioner could not file return of income for reasons given in the representation dated 19.05.2015, was found to be acceptable by the first respondent, and there is no finding that the representation is false, while entertaining the request for furnishing the photostat copies of the seized/impounded documents. Therefore, if for such purpose, the cause pleaded by the petitioner was found to be reasonable and consequently th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
