2018 (12) TMI 1134 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - refusal to answer the notice under Section 142(1) - notice u/s 142 (1) was issued on 18/7/ 2013 and date was fixed for the compliance was 22/7/2013 - Held that - Respectfully following the decision of Mr. Sanjay Dalamia 2018 (3) TMI 1411 - DELHI HIGH COURT as held if the assessee really had no connection with such accounts, no prejudice could really have ensued to him if he would have complied with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and filed the consent form. In these circumstances, the penalty cannot be held to be erroneous or unwarranted. Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the act is upheld for all these seven years arising out of the same search and relating to the same bank account and for the same reason of not filing the consent letter, we also confirm the penalty levied by the AO for all these seven years u/s 271(1)(b) of the act in case of the appellant. We also uphold the order of the ld CIT (A) for all these seven years confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the act of ₹ 10,000/- for each year. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for non-compliance with notice under Section 142(1).
2. Reasonable cause for non-compliance.
3. Procedural validity of penalty proceedings.
4. Timeliness of penalty order under Section 275(1)(c).
5. Relevance of related case laws and precedents.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(b) for Non-Compliance with Notice Under Section 142(1):

The primary issue revolves around the assessee's failure to comply with a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, which required the submission of a consent letter to verify alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts. The assessee denied having such accounts and refused to sign the consent letter. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered this non-compliance and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b), imposing a penalty of ?10,000 for each assessment year from 2006-07 to 2012-13.

2. Reasonable Cause for Non-Compliance:

The assessee argued that there was no failure to comply, as a response was submitted on 23/7/2013, albeit one day late, denying the existence of the alleged bank accounts. The assessee contended that signing the consent letter would be unnecessary and unreasonable. However, the tribunal found that merely denying the existence of accounts without providing the consent letter constituted non-compliance. The tribunal emphasized that signing the consent letter would not have prejudiced the assessee if the accounts did not exist.

3. Procedural Validity of Penalty Proceedings:

Several procedural objections were raised by the assessee:
- The penalty notice was issued before the commencement of assessment proceedings.
- The penalty notice lacked proper satisfaction by the AO.
- The assessee was not provided with the information available with the AO.

The tribunal rejected these objections, noting that the assessment proceedings had commenced with the issuance of the notice under Section 153A. The tribunal also found that the AO had provided sufficient information and recorded satisfaction before issuing the penalty notice.

4. Timeliness of Penalty Order Under Section 275(1)(c):

The assessee argued that the penalty order was time-barred under Section 275(1)(c), as it was passed on 12/1/2015, beyond the stipulated period. The tribunal held that the penalty order was within the permissible time limit, as the assessment order was passed on 27/3/2015, and the penalty order was issued before the completion of the assessment.

5. Relevance of Related Case Laws and Precedents:

The tribunal relied on precedents, particularly the case of Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, where similar penalties were upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. The tribunal found the facts of the present case to be analogous, involving the same search, same alleged bank accounts, and the same refusal to sign the consent letter. The tribunal also distinguished the present case from other cited cases where penalties were deleted due to reasonable cause or procedural lapses.

Conclusion:

The tribunal upheld the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for all seven assessment years, concluding that the assessee's refusal to sign the consent letter constituted non-compliance without reasonable cause. The procedural objections raised by the assessee were found to be without merit, and the penalty order was deemed to be within the statutory time limit. The tribunal's decision was consistent with the precedents set by higher judicial authorities in similar cases. Consequently, all seven appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.