Penalty relief under s.271F granted; non-filing excused due to surgery and ill-health, no falsehood found

HC allowed the writ, set aside penalties levied under s.271F for all assessment years, and decided in favour of the assessee. The court accepted the taxpayer's representation that non-filing immediately after notice under s.153A was due to ill-health and surgery, noting the Revenue had acted on that representation (including supplying seized document copies). No finding of falsehood was recorded, so the cause was held reasonable and negated penalty liability. Vague personal allegations against the officer were dismissed, and an inadvertent caption error on the counter-affidavit was excused.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Reasonable cause for non-filing of income tax returns.
3. Allegations of malafide against the assessing officer.
4. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of alternate remedies.
5. Validity of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271F, which levied a penalty of Rs. 5,000 for non-filing of returns for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15. The court noted that Section 271F deals with penalties for failure to furnish returns of income. The petitioner had filed the returns only after the initiation of penalty proceedings. The court examined whether the penalty was justifiable under the circumstances.

2. Reasonable Cause for Non-filing of Income Tax Returns:
The petitioner argued that the delay in filing returns was due to the seizure of documents during a search on 27.11.2013, and the subsequent delay in receiving copies of these documents. The court referred to Section 273B, which provides that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the failure. The court found that the petitioner had made continuous efforts to obtain the seized documents, which were only provided on 02.06.2015. The court cited several precedents where reasonable cause was accepted, such as CIT vs. Padmanabhan S. and CIT vs. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel, concluding that the petitioner's cause was reasonable and the penalty should not be imposed.

3. Allegations of Malafide against the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner alleged that the penalty order was tainted with malafide, as it was passed after the dismissal of their earlier writ petitions. The court found these allegations to be vague and not substantiated by evidence. The court emphasized that such personal allegations were not relevant to the legal issue at hand and thus eschewed them from consideration.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition in Light of Alternate Remedies:
The Revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of alternate remedies. The court acknowledged that while alternate remedies exist, the mere existence of such remedies is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. The court held that given the specific circumstances and the reasonable cause shown, it was appropriate to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Validity of the Counter Affidavit Filed by the Respondent:
The petitioner pointed out that the counter affidavit was not sworn by the first respondent but by another officer. The court accepted the explanation that this was a bona fide mistake and found the explanation offered by the Revenue's counsel to be satisfactory.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders levying penalties under Section 271F for all the assessment years in question. The court concluded that the petitioner had shown a reasonable cause for the delay in filing returns, and thus, the penalty was not justified. The court also dismissed the allegations of malafide and accepted the explanation regarding the counter affidavit. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

---