2018 (7) TMI 378 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non compliance of notices under section 148/142(1) - Held that - As it is clear from the provisions of section 271(1)(b) that this provision can be invoked only for non compliance of notice under section 115WD(2) or section 115WE(2) or section 142(1) or 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act, therefore, other than the default committed by the assessee specified in the clause (b) of section 271(1) the non compliance to the other notices or directions would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice under section 148 is not valid and the same is deleted. As regards the penalty levied for non compliance of notice under section 142(1), we find that the assessee was not served with any of the notices issued by the AO due to the change of address and since the assessee has not filed any return of income, therefore, the AO was not having the present address of the assessee. Hence when the notice issued under section 142(1) was not served upon the assessee, and the AO has not conducted further enquiry regarding the current address of the assessee then in the facts and circumstances of the case that the assessee had already furnished the current address in the quantum proceedings, the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and reasonable. We delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for non compliance of section 142(1). - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the IT Act.
- Interpretation of provisions of section 271(1)(b) regarding the imposition of penalties for non-compliance.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the IT Act:
The appellant, an agriculturist, sold agricultural land and was issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) based on information from the Sub Registrar. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with these notices. The appellant contested the penalty before the ld. CIT (A) and later before the ITAT. The appellant argued that penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed for non-compliance with a notice under section 148, as the section specifically refers to non-compliance with notices under sections 142(1), 143(2), and 142(2A) only. The ITAT agreed with the appellant's contention and held that the penalty of ?10,000 imposed for non-compliance with the notice under section 148 was not valid. The ITAT emphasized that section 271(1)(b) only allows penalties for non-compliance with specific notices mentioned in the provision.

Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions of section 271(1)(b) regarding the imposition of penalties for non-compliance:
The ITAT analyzed the AO's order and observed that the penalty was imposed for non-compliance with notices under sections 148 and 142(1). The AO justified the penalty citing non-compliance with statutory notices issued under these sections. However, the ITAT clarified that section 271(1)(b) does not cover non-compliance with notices under section 148. The ITAT further noted that the appellant had shifted residences, leading to non-receipt of notices. The ITAT found the reasons for non-compliance to be genuine and reasonable, especially since the appellant had provided the current address during previous proceedings. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with the notice under section 142(1). The ITAT upheld the appellant's argument, emphasizing that penalties under section 271(1)(b) are limited to specific non-compliances as outlined in the provision.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the specific provisions of the IT Act when imposing penalties for non-compliance with statutory notices. The judgment underscored the need for precise interpretation of the law to ensure fair application of penalties in tax matters.