Income Tax

Non issuance of statutory notice u/s 274(1) vitiated levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) – ITAT

Non issuance of statutory notice u/s 274(1) vitiated levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings not amount to recording the satisfaction-ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2446 (2018) 08 ITAT

The instant judgment was delivered in a bunch of appeals filed by several assessee against the CIT(A)’s action of confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). due to non compliance of notice by the assessee.

Pursuant to the search and seizure operation notice u/s 153(1) of Act was issued which was not complied with. Also, successive notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were also not complied with resulting in penalty order u/s 271F of the Act for failure to furnish return of income.

Further, for non compliance with the notice u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act issued for several times, a notice u/s 271(1)(b) was also issued more than one time but the same was also ignored by the assessee without appearance either in person or through Authorized Representative. In the circumstances, due to the non cooperation of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act deeming it to be a fit case for imposing the penalty.

CIT(A) confirmed the penalty and dismissed the appeals.

Before the Tribunal, the main plank of argument of the assessee was that no statutory notice u/s 274(1) of the Act was issued prior to the levy of penalty and the assessee is denied the opportunity of being heard.

It was submitted that for want of compliance with said statutory requirement and violation of the principles of natural justice also, the levy of penalty was bad.

Further, it was submitted that the proposal to initiate the penalty proceedings could not be equated to the recording of satisfaction on the failure of the assessee, as such, the penalty cannot be sustained. For this proposition the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissing the SLP against the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court.

The Tribunal observed that it was not the case of the Revenue that any notice u/s 274(1) of the Act was ever issued to the assessee or that the assessee was heard before the levy of penalty.

The Tribunal opined that the issuance of notice u/s 274(1) of the Act is a jurisdictional issue, and non issuance thereof vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal expressed agreement with the assessee in that mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings was not equivalent to recording the requisite satisfaction on the failure of the assessee to comply with the notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Act. For non recording of any satisfaction and for not affording any opportunity to the assessee after issuing of notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) of the Act vitiated the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty could not be sustained and accordingly quashed the penalty proceedings.

 Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • RBI

RBI specifies ‘Related Party’ with respect to banks

RBI specifies ‘Related Party’ with respect to bank RBI has issued RBI Credit Risk Management Directions, 2025 defining ‘Related Party’…

29 minutes ago
  • GST

Advisory on Filing Opt-In Declaration for Specified Premises, 2025

Advisory on Filing Opt-In Declaration for Specified Premises, 2025 Dear Taxpayers, The relevant declarations issued vide Notification No. 05/2025 –…

1 day ago
  • GST

FAQs for HSNS Cess Act, 2025 and HSNS Cess Rules, 2026

FAQs for HSNS Cess Act, 2025 and HSNS Cess Rules, 2026 Q1. Who is required to get registered under the…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter thrown out at threshold

Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter thrown out at very threshold against case being decided on…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Prior period income cannot be considered as income of the current year

When prior period expenses are not admissible as deduction, following the same principle the prior period income also cannot be…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

SC condoned delay of 972 days in filing appeal due to restructuring in Department

Supreme Court condoned delay of 972 days in filing appeal due to restructuring in Income Tax Department In a recent…

5 days ago