9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals of the assessee. - ITA Nos.991 to 994/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2022 - GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by: Shri. Shantha Veeranna Abbigeri, Advocate Revenue by: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR) ORDER Per Bench: These four penalty appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the CIT(A) dated 18.08.2022 confirming the penalty order passed by the AO (Assessing Officer) under section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ), for belated filing of income tax return under section 139(4) of the Act. 2. This is the second round of proceedings before the Tribunal. The sole issue involved in all these appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was initiated vide notice dated 10.10.2017 under section 274 r.w.s. 271F of the Act. In response to the notice, the Authorised Representative appeared and filed detailed reply for justifying not imposing penalty upon the assessee for belated filling of income tax return relying with two judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court. The AO considered his reply, the same is mentioned in his order and the case law quoted by the AR has also been discussed. Accordingly, the AO passed order well within time allowed as per the provisions of the Act on 30.11.2017. 5. Aggrieved from the above order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) decided the issue and passed the consolidated order on 15.03.2018. 6. Aggrieved from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 8. Against the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The order passed by the AO was not within the reasonable time. He also submitted that the assessee filed return of income voluntarily and order passed by the AO is beyond the limit prescribed as per section 275(1)(c) of the Act. He also submitted that while the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, no penalty notice was issued to the assessee and it was issued on 10.10.2017, which is invalid notice. Therefore, the penalty order passed by the AO is not in conformity with the Income Tax provisions. Therefore, the penalty should be dropped. He al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of the Tribunal, we note that in all the 4 years, the income of the assessee was above the taxable limit and he was required to file IT returns within the due date as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act but we noted that in all the 4 years, as noted supra, in any of the 4 Assessment Years, the assessee did not file his return within the due date. The impugned defaults can only be considered as a conscious disregard of once statutory obligations, and the penalty stands rightly levied as the assessee is a habitual defaulter. We also reject the arguments of the learned Authorized Representative that the order passed by the AO is beyond time limit. The AO issued noticed on 10.10.2017 and passed his order on 13.10.2017, which is well wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
