TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 952
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Ahd/2025 (A.Y. 2014-15) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s. 271F of the Act, without considering the submission of the appellant filed to him during the course of appellate proceedings and has illegally and incorrectly decided the issue against the appellant. The Hon'ble Bench is prayed to delete such illegal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s. 271F of the Act and grant to that extent. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary." ITA No. 706/Ahd/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s. 271F of the Act, without considering the submission of the appellant filed to him during the course of appellate proceedings and has illegally and incorrectly decided the issue against the appellant. The Hon'ble Bench is prayed to delete such illegal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- u/s. 271F of the Act and grant to that extent. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....outstanding in her U.S. books, thereby confirming that it had no nexus with any Indian income or asset. The assessee also pointed out that the same transaction had already been examined and substantively added to the income of her brother, Shri Harsh D. Shah, in his assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15 by DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara, and therefore any further addition in her case would result in duplication and double taxation. 5. After considering the submissions, the Assessing Officer noted that while the substantive addition of Rs.7,32,68,860/- had been made in the hands of Shri Harsh D. Shah under section 69 of the Act, it was not conclusively established who was the real beneficiary of the loan transaction. Accordingly, to safeguard the interest of the Revenue, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 153C read with section 144 on 19.05.2022, adding Rs.7,32,68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee to file return of income would attract penalty under section 271F of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 11. Before going into the assessee's specific set of facts, it would be useful to discuss some relevant judicial precedents on the subject. 12. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel [2008] 306 ITR 179 (Gujarat), the High Court held that where assessee filed return of income for assessment year 1979-80 on 23-3-1982 showing amount received on sale of agricultural land as exempt in view of Bombay High Court's decision in Manubhai A. Shet v. ITO which was delivered only in July, 1980, a bona fide belief as to exemption of said income could be entertained by assessee only after decision of Bombay High Court and, therefore, it was only after July, 1980 that penalty u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months led the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roves 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 v. S. Padmanabhan [2006] 284 ITR 535/155 Taxman 458 (Kar.), where the return was filed pursuant to seizure of the fixed deposits during search, the explanation of the assessee was that he was under bona fide belief that interest was not taxable. The findings of all the authorities was that the explanation was reasonable and no finding that the explanation was false and it was held that there was no question of levy of penalty. 12. In Jyoti Laxman Konkar v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 163 (Bom.), there were discrepancies in stock noticed during survey and the assessee meanwhile filed a revised return admitting the value of such discrepancy, it was held that no concealment of income in the original return was estab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... financial and family difficulties and were under the bona fide impression that the gains from sale of agricultural land were not taxable. Holding that there existed a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act, the Tribunal deleted the penalties in both cases. Accordingly, both appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee's. 16. In the present case, we have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, and examined the facts in the light of judicial precedents cited above. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee, Smt. Avani D. Shah, is a Non-Resident Indian residing in the United States of America for more than two decades and that the impugned transaction of USD 12,00,000 was a loan received from M/s. Papenj LLC, Morton Grove, Illinois, for business purposes in the USA. The assessee has demonstrated that the said transaction was undertaken through U.S. bank accounts, duly supported by a promissory note dated 17.06.2013, and that no part of the amount was ever remitted or utilized in India. It is further established from the assessment record that the same transaction has already been examined and substantively ad....