Tribunal held that in the entire scheme of the Act concerning penal provisions specifically section 139(1) read with section 271F of the Act, the facts and circumstances and the reasonableness have always to be considered. The genuineness of the problem faced by the assessee had not been disputed by the Department. The provisions of section 271F of the Act were not so stringent that if section 139(1) of the Act was not complied with, penalty would be levied irrespective of any practical or reasonable situations brought on record. The Department had failed to conduct any specific enquiry as regards whether the facts stated by the assessee were correct or not. The facts on record and had not been disputed by the Department. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this was not a fit case for imposing penalty under section 271F of the Act. (AY.2009-10 to 2011-12)
Rupali Sanjay Bedmutha (Smt.) v. ITO (2020) 83 ITR 30 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)
S. 271F : Penalty – Return of income-Failure to furnish-Depression and under continuous medical treatment-Reasonable cause-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 139(1), 271(1)(b)]