2025 (9) TMI 489 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under s.271F set aside where taxpayer's bona fide belief income was below taxable limit amounted to reasonable cause

ITAT Delhi-AT set aside penalty under s.271F for failure to file return, holding the assessee's bona fide belief that income was below taxable limit ... Penalty u/s. 271F - non filing of income return of income - as argued income was below taxable limit and was therefore not liable to file his ITR u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT:- As decided in Mrs. Manju Kataruka [2004 (4) TMI 262 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B] When the assessee shows that the cause was reasonable, the burden will shift to the Department to prove that it was not a reasonable one so as to justify the assessee's failure to file return within required time. The matter is to be decided judicially on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. If a question arises to the Department as to whether the cause shown by the assessee is reasonable or not while exercising its discretion to impose penalty under Section 271F and two alternative meanings are given to the cause shown, one should lean in favour of the subject as it is by now settled that if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty We are of the considered opinion that in the present facts and circumstances of the case the penalty u/s. 271F of the Act is not warranted because assessee / appellant was in bonafide belief and he had no deliberate defiance of law so no case of penalty u/s. 271F of the Act is made out against assessee/ appellant, hence unsustainable in law and impugned penalty deserves to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether penalty under section 271F (failure to furnish return of income within the time specified) is sustainable where the assessee, during the relevant year, honestly believed that his total income was below the taxable/exemption limit and therefore was not required to file a return under section 139(1). 2. Whether a bona fide belief that no return was required, or absence of deliberate defiance of the law, constitutes a reasonable cause to negate imposition of penalty under section 271F. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Penalty under section 271F where assessee believed income was below taxable limit Legal framework: Section 139(1) prescribes the duty to furnish return of income within the time specified; section 271F authorises imposition of penalty where a person, without reasonable cause, fails to furnish the return within the time allowed. The statutory scheme thus requires both establishment of failure and absence of reasonable cause before penalising. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on prior authority (ITAT Kolkata) which held that where a taxpayer of ordinary prudence honestly believes there is no tax liability after accounting for exemptions, rebates and withholding, such belief can amount to a reasonable cause unless shown to be false, fabricated or not bona fide. That authority was followed rather than distinguished or overruled. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the factual matrix: (a) the assessee had online share transactions with substantial turnover but ultimately declared a total income below the exemption threshold (assessed income Rs.1,59,710); (b) the assessee filed a return when notice under section 148 was issued and there was no tax payable after assessment; (c) the assessee asserted a bona fide belief he was not required to file under section 139(1) because his income was below the exemption limit. Applying the principle that a reasonable man of ordinary prudence acting under normal circumstances may hold such a belief, the Tribunal treated that belief as potentially constituting reasonable cause. The Tribunal emphasised that the requirement is to consider the explanation objectively and judicially, assessing whether the cause shown is reasonable on a preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that a bona fide belief of non-liability to file return (because income is below exemption) may qualify as reasonable cause for non-filing is ratio decidendi for the present appeal. The discussion that the Department bears the burden to displace such a reasonable explanation once shown by the assessee is also part of the operative ratio. The textual recitation of the prior authority's general guidelines on construction of penal provisions (leaning in favour of the assessee when two reasonable constructions exist) is persuasive ratio but also contains explanatory observations bordering on obiter. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that, on the facts, the penalty under section 271F was not warranted because the assessee held a bona fide belief he was not required to file under section 139(1) and there was no evidence of deliberate defiance. The penalty was therefore deleted. Issue 2 - Bona fide belief, reasonable cause and burden of proof in penalty proceedings Legal framework: Imposition of penalty under section 271F requires absence of reasonable cause. The statutory and judicial approach requires objective consideration of the assessee's explanation and allocation of burden once reasonable cause is shown. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal explicitly followed the test articulated by the referenced ITAT decision: the cause must be considered from the standpoint of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence; the assessee must prove reasonable cause on a preponderance of probabilities; once reasonable cause is shown, the onus shifts to the Department to prove the cause was not reasonable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal applied this framework to the facts: the assessee's explanation (lack of knowledge of trading nuances, losses, absence of tax payable) was treated as an objectively plausible ground preventing timely filing. The Tribunal noted there was no cogent material produced by the Department demonstrating that the belief was false or that there was willful or deliberate non-compliance. The Tribunal reiterated that in penal contexts, if two reasonable constructions exist, the one exculpating the taxpayer should be preferred. Ratio vs. Obiter: The articulation that the assessee must establish reasonable cause on a preponderance of probabilities and that the Department must rebut it is part of the operative ratio. The emphasis on general principles of construing penal provisions in favour of the subject, while supportive of the ratio, functions also as a guiding interpretive remark. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the assessee's bona fide explanation constituted reasonable cause for non-filing; the Department failed to rebut that explanation; accordingly, penalty under section 271F could not be sustained. Cross-reference and interplay between issues The two issues are interrelated: determination of whether penalty is sustainable (Issue 1) depends on whether the explanation qualifies as reasonable cause (Issue 2). The Tribunal's factual finding that the assessed income was below the exemption limit directly informed the legal conclusion that the assessee's belief was bona fide and reasonable, leading to deletion of the penalty. Disposition The Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty under section 271F on the ground that the assessee's bona fide belief and absence of deliberate defiance constituted reasonable cause for non-filing; no penalty was sustainable in law under the circumstances.