2017 (4) TMI 108 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-appearance on six occasions on notices issues u/s 142(1) - Held that;- We observe that if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act or 142(1) of the Act, there lies a remedy with the Assessing Officer for framing best judgement assessment under the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be imposed again and again. However, in the case of assessee, we observe that he failed to comply with the notice dated 24.07.2013 and again remained silent in further four notices, as narrated above in the table. It, therefore, shows that at least on two occasions, assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for the Act for non-compliance to the notices dated 02.05.2013 and 10.09.2013. We, therefore, in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Rekha Rani (2015 (5) TMI 1100 - ITAT DELHI) and in view of the facts discussed above, hold that assessee is liable to pay ₹ 20,000/- as penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act as against ₹ 60,000/- imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer. - Decided partly in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) - Whether penalty was rightly imposed for each default or restricted to the first default.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Penalty Imposed for Non-Compliance with Notices

The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1). The assessee argued that the penalty should have been imposed for the first non-compliance only, not for subsequent defaults. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of ?60,000, stating that the assessee deliberately avoided complying with the notices and failed to establish any reasonable cause for non-compliance. The CIT(A) referred to a judicial precedent where it was held that subsequent partial compliance does not absolve the assessee from the guilt associated with previous non-compliance. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides and analyzed the chronology of events leading to non-compliance with the notices.

Issue 2: Judicial Precedent and Application

The Tribunal referred to a decision by a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case where the penalty was restricted to the first default, not for each instance of non-compliance. The Tribunal observed that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is of a deterrent nature and not for revenue generation. It was noted that imposing a penalty for each instance of non-compliance without limits was not the intention of the legislature. The Tribunal held that the penalty should be restricted to the first default, and the Assessing Officer has the remedy of framing a "best judgment assessment" under Section 144 of the Act in case of continued non-compliance. Based on this precedent and the facts of the case, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee should be liable to pay a reduced penalty of ?20,000 instead of the originally imposed ?60,000.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, reducing the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act to ?20,000 from the initial ?60,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer. The decision was based on the principle that the penalty should be restricted to the first default and not imposed repeatedly for the same non-compliance. The Tribunal's judgment was delivered on 29th March 2017 at Ahmedabad.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, including the arguments presented by both parties, the application of judicial precedents, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.