2025 (3) TMI 1383 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of penalty order given that the show-cause notice fixed a later date for appearance - HELD THAT - As we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the Notice dated 24th October 2019 issued under Section 274 r/w Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act apparently had fixed date 08th November 2019 for showing the cause as to why penalty proceedings should not be taken up under Section 271(1)(c). A perusal of the penalty order that was impugned before the Tribunal would show that it was made on 24th October 2019 i.e. the day on which the show-cause notice was issued fixing 08th November 2019 as a date of hearing. Thus there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice that would warrant invalidation of the penalty order and the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirming it by answering the subject substantial question of law in favour of the Assessee. This appeal succeeds. Penalty Order and the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal s Order which has confirmed it are set aside.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment were:

i. Whether the Tribunal's decision to reject the appellant's submissions and claims was correct.

ii. Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order passed by the lower authority.

iii. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by ignoring materials placed on record and submissions made in support of the appellant's claim.

iv. Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant's view by relying on cited judgments.

v. Whether the Tribunal's findings were vitiated due to reliance on conjecture rather than material evidence.

Additionally, a new substantial question of law was raised:

vi. Whether the penalty order dated 24th October 2019 was valid, given that the show-cause notice fixed a later date for appearance.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

i. Tribunal's Rejection of Appellant's Submissions

The Tribunal's decision to reject the appellant's submissions was based on its interpretation of the facts and evidence presented. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider genuine submissions and claims. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty order, indicating that it found the appellant's arguments insufficient to overturn the lower authority's decision.

ii. Justification for Upholding Lower Authority's Order

The Tribunal's confirmation of the lower authority's order was contested by the appellant, who claimed that the decision was unjustified. The Tribunal, however, maintained that the lower authority's findings were correct, suggesting that it found the evidence and reasoning presented by the lower authority to be compelling.

iii. Ignoring Materials and Submissions

The appellant contended that the Tribunal ignored materials and submissions that supported their claim. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty order implies that it either found the materials and submissions unpersuasive or deemed them irrelevant to the core issues at hand.

iv. Reliance on Cited Judgments

The appellant argued that the Tribunal wrongly relied on cited judgments to negate their view. The Tribunal's reliance on precedent suggests that it found the cited judgments applicable and relevant to the case, thereby justifying its decision.

v. Findings Based on Conjecture

The appellant claimed that the Tribunal's findings were based on surmise and conjecture rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal's affirmation of the penalty order indicates that it believed the findings were supported by sufficient evidence, despite the appellant's assertions to the contrary.

vi. Validity of the Penalty Order

The appellant raised a new question regarding the validity of the penalty order, given that the show-cause notice fixed a later date for appearance. The Court found that issuing the penalty order on the same day as the show-cause notice, which set a future date for a hearing, constituted a violation of natural justice principles. This finding was pivotal in the Court's decision to set aside the penalty order and the Tribunal's affirmation of it.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that the penalty order dated 24th October 2019, and the subsequent affirmation by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, were invalid due to a breach of natural justice principles. The issuance of the penalty order on the same day as the show-cause notice, which fixed a later date for appearance, was a critical factor in this determination.

The Court stated: "There is a gross violation of principles of natural justice that would warrant invalidation of the penalty order and the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal affirming it, by answering the subject substantial question of law, in favour of the Assessee."

The core principle established was the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles, particularly ensuring that parties have a fair opportunity to present their case before a decision is made.

The final determination was to set aside the penalty order and the Tribunal's order affirming it. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for reconsideration, ensuring the appellant is given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. All contentions of the parties were left open for future consideration.

← Previous Next →