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

  • Empanelment

FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms

Invitation For Empanelment Of Practising Chartered Accountants / Chartered Accountant Firms Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM Limited), Nagpur,…

2 days ago
  • Empanelment

PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work

Press Registrar General of India (PGRI) invites application for empanelment of Chartered Accountants. The Press Registrar General of India manages…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner

CBDT notifies revised Form No. 169 for making application for registration as a valuer under section 514 and authorised income…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC

Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from statutorily available 30 days to 15 days seriously prejudiced assessee’s…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated

At the stage of registration u/s 12AB, the CIT(E) not empowered to adjudicate applicability of provisio to section 2(15) of…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Flower bed area not included in “built up area” to calculate eligible limit u/s 80IB(10)

Flower bed area could not be included in the definition of “built up area” to calculate eligible limit of 1000…

5 days ago