2017 (9) TMI 1923 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Delay in furnishing required details - as submitted that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act which was proof enough that the assessee had duly cooperated during the course of assessment proceedings - HELD THAT - We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust 2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G - we hold that the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was patently wrong especially in view of the fact that the impugned assessment order has been passed u/s 143(3). While setting aside the impugned order we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(b)
The appeal was filed against the order upholding the penalty of ?10,000 imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that there was no intention to avoid hearings, and the delay in furnishing details was not intentional non-compliance. It was highlighted that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, indicating cooperation during the assessment proceedings. Reference was made to previous ITAT Delhi Bench decisions to support the argument that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was considered good compliance, and earlier defaults were ignored by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 1 Analysis:
The Tribunal rejected the department's adjournment application and proceeded ex parte. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the case was similar to previous decisions where mere initiation of penalty did not confer jurisdiction without recording satisfaction in the assessment order. Since the assessment was finalized under section 143(3) and not section 144, it was deemed that subsequent compliance indicated good conduct, and there was no reason to conclude willful default. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(b) was incorrect. The impugned order was set aside, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. The appeal of the assessee was allowed based on these findings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions and previous judicial precedents, emphasizing the importance of satisfaction recorded in the assessment order and the significance of compliance during assessment proceedings. The judgment provided clarity on the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, ensuring that penalties are imposed in accordance with the law and considering the conduct of the assessee during the assessment process.