Penalty for non-compliance with income-tax notice turns on reasonable cause, not mens rea, and is not purely discretionary.

In penalty proceedings for non-compliance with an income-tax notice, the Revenue need not prove mens rea or deliberate default; the provision was treated as operating in the tax field, where the focus is on the default and the assessee's explanation. The assessee bears the onus to show reasonable cause for failure to comply, especially where the cause lies within its special knowledge, and a rejected explanation unsupported by fresh material will not suffice. The levy of penalty was also held not to be discretionary in the sense accepted by the Tribunal, and cancellation of the penalties was held legally unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue was required to prove deliberate default or mens rea on the part of the assessee; (ii) whether the assessee had shown reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notice under section 142(1)(i) of the Act; and (iii) whether the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) was discretionary.

Issue (i): Whether, in a penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue was required to prove deliberate default or mens rea on the part of the assessee.

Analysis: The penalty provision was treated as placing the matter within the tax field rather than the criminal law field. The absence of mens rea or proof of deliberate default by the Department was held to be irrelevant for penalty under section 271(1)(b). The focus remained on non-compliance with the notice and the assessee's justification for such non-compliance.

Conclusion: The Revenue was not required to prove mens rea or deliberate default.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had shown reasonable cause for failure to comply with the notice under section 142(1)(i) of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory language was treated as requiring the assessee to establish reasonable cause for non-compliance. The onus was held to lie on the assessee because the cause for failure was a matter within its special knowledge. On the facts, the explanation regarding loss of books of account was rejected in other proceedings, and no fresh material or effective effort was made in the penalty proceeding to substantiate reasonable cause.

Conclusion: The assessee did not show reasonable cause for the default.

Issue (iii): Whether the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) was discretionary.

Analysis: The words used in section 271 were construed in context, and the expression that the authority "may direct" was held to operate mandatorily in the setting of proved non-compliance without reasonable cause. The Tribunal's view that the penalty was purely discretionary was rejected.

Conclusion: The levy of penalty was not discretionary in the manner accepted by the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's cancellation of the penalties was legally unsustainable, and the statutory penalty under section 271(1)(b) stood restored in principle on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, once non-compliance with a notice under section 142(1) is established, the assessee must prove reasonable cause, and mens rea or deliberate default need not be proved by the Revenue.

---