2023 (1) TMI 767 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-compliance of the statutory notices u/s 142(1) - HELD THAT - It is not disputed by the Revenue that the notice was sent on the address given in the income tax return filed by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the assessee had not provided the correct address to the Assessing Authority - we are of the considered view that the assessing authority ought to have served notice at the correct address as mentioned in income tax return. The statutory notice should not be issued in a casual and mechanical manner. Assessing Authority should verify the records placed before it and ensure the statutory notice is served on the current address of the assessee. Looking to the facts of the present case in our considered view, the AO was not justified in levying of the impugned penalty. We direct the AO to delete the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Non-service of notice leading to penalty imposition.
2. Justification of penalty imposition without opportunity for rebuttal.
3. Correctness of address for notice service.

Issue 1: Non-service of notice leading to penalty imposition:
The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.10,000, due to non-compliance with statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the non-compliance was a result of the notice being sent to an incorrect address, leading to the notice not being served. The appellant contended that this fact was brought to the notice of the CIT(A) but was not considered. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the notices were sent to the correct address and duly served, emphasizing the appellant's failure to comply without reasonable cause. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Authority should have ensured the notice was served at the correct address as per the income tax return. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, allowing the grounds raised by the assessee.

Issue 2: Justification of penalty imposition without opportunity for rebuttal:
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to rebut the claim of non-service of notice, which was against the principles of law and natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's contention and emphasized that the Assessing Authority should have verified the records to ensure the statutory notice was served at the current address of the assessee. The Tribunal held that the penalty imposition without proper verification and opportunity for rebuttal was not justified, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty amount.

Issue 3: Correctness of address for notice service:
The dispute revolved around the correctness of the address for notice service, with the appellant claiming that the notice was sent to an incorrect address, leading to non-service. The CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer maintained that the notices were sent to the correct address and duly served, as per the details provided in the income tax return. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Authority should have ensured the notice was served at the correct address mentioned in the return. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of serving statutory notices accurately and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, considering the failure to serve notice at the correct address.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the significance of serving statutory notices at the correct address as per the income tax return and emphasized the need for proper verification before penalty imposition.

← Previous Next →