2023 (4) TMI 1092 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal grants appeal delay, upholds deduction disallowance, imposes penalty for non-filing.

Om Prakash Sharma HUF Versus ITO, ’ Ward-4 (1), Jaipur.

Om Prakash Sharma HUF Versus ITO, ’ Ward-4 (1), Jaipur. - TMI Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal2. Disallowance of deduction under section 80P3. Imposition of penalty under section 271F for non-filing of returnCondonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The Appellate Tribunal observed a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. Despite the absence of the assessee's representative, the Tribunal considered the matter. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's plea for condonation of the delay, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC), stating that the delay was due to sufficient cause preventing the assessee.Disallowance of Deduction under Section 80P:The assessee raised grounds challenging the disallowance of a deduction under section 80P amounting to Rs. 94,77,887. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing that the assessee failed to file the return of income despite notices issued during the proceedings. The Commissioner noted that the appellant's income exceeded the exemption limit and was assessed at Rs. 25,77,750 under section 144 r.w.s 147. The Commissioner highlighted that the appellant did not disclose the sale of a property transaction, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271F for non-filing of the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11.Imposition of Penalty under Section 271F for Non-Filing of Return:The assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271F for the assessee's failure to file the return of income. Despite the appellant's submission of an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), no cogent reason was provided for not filing the return. The assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000 under section 271F for non-filing of the return of income. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, citing the provision of section 271F and previous case law where failure to file a return of income, even if the income was exempt, warranted the penalty. Relying on the decision of a Coordinate Bench, the Tribunal affirmed the lower authorities' decision to sustain the penalty, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities regarding the disallowance of deduction under section 80P and the imposition of penalty under section 271F for non-filing of the return of income. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with tax filing requirements and upheld the penalty based on relevant legal provisions and precedents.