2018 (6) TMI 1281 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) - validity of notice - non recording of satisfaction - Held that - In case of any failure to submit desired details, penalty would be levied but the necessary statutory satisfaction u/s. 271(1) of the I.T. Act that the assessee has failed to comply with the notices and the AO was satisfied to initiate the penalty proceedings has not been recorded anywhere. As further submitted that a proposal to initiate penalty proceedings is not equivalent to recording a satisfaction which is the post failure and not with the a preposition if failed to . Also on perusing the order sheets entries do not show issuance of any notice u/s. 274 read with Section 271(1) of the Act or of recording of any such satisfaction. The penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same is deleted and appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. Following the consistent view taken in assessment year 2008-09 as aforesaid, the penalty involved in other appeals in respect of assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 also stand deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act - Compliance with notices and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-2) pertaining to assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15. The common grounds raised by the Assessee in all appeals primarily challenged the confirmation of the penalty of ?10,000/- levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Assessee argued that there was no noncompliance and that necessary photocopies of the seized material were provided at a later date. The Assessee also contended that the penalty was confirmed before the scheduled hearing date, and there was no undisclosed income or incriminating material found. Additionally, it was argued that the penalty was imposed without identifying the date of default for non-compliance by the assessing officer.

A search and seizure operation was conducted on the business and residential premises of the assesses group, leading to the issuance of various notices for compliance. The Assessee failed to comply with the notices, resulting in the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer found that the Assessee did not furnish replies to the notices despite multiple opportunities and failed to provide plausible explanations for non-compliance. Consequently, a penalty of ?10,000/- was imposed, which was later confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

During the hearing, the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee argued that no statutory notice under section 274(1) of the Income Tax Act was issued to the Assessee before imposing the penalty, depriving the Assessee of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. It was contended that the necessary statutory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings was not recorded, rendering the penalty liable to be quashed. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below.

After considering the arguments and perusing the relevant records and case law cited by the Assessee, the Tribunal found merit in the contention that no statutory notice was issued to the Assessee for a hearing before imposing the penalty. The Tribunal noted the absence of recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and concluded that the penalty imposed was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeals of the Assessee were allowed for all assessment years involved.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was deleted for non-compliance with statutory requirements, lack of recorded satisfaction, and absence of a reasonable opportunity for the Assessee to be heard. The consistent view taken in assessment year 2008-09 was applied to other appeals for subsequent assessment years, resulting in the deletion of penalties and allowing all appeals filed by the Assessee.