2019 (10) TMI 729 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalty orders for non-compliance with notice, rejects reasonable cause argument.

Md. Mofazzalur Rahman, F. Serajuddin Exports (P) Ltd., Serajuddin & Co. (P) Ltd., Aliza International (P) Ltd., Yazdani International (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-1 (2), Bhubaneswar

The Tribunal upheld penalty orders under Section 271F for non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 153A(a). It found the Assessing Officer had ... Penalty levied u/s.271F - non-compliance of the notice u/s.153A(1)(a) - assessee has not complied the notice issued by the AO even after issuance of reminders - HELD THAT:- The contention of the assessee that the AO is not empowered to issue notice u/s.153A(1)(a) and cannot levy penalty u/s.271F of the Act, is not accepted as it is mandatory and no directory. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the case law relied on by the AR of the assessee is not applicable in the present case. We also make it clear that the case law relied on by the AR of the assessee relates to Section 276CC of the Act which relates to prosecution, penalty and prosecution both are separate in nature, which cannot be equated with. With regard to the contention of ld. AR that there was a reasonable cause u/s.273B of the Act for immunity provided u/s.273B of the Act containing reasonable cause in which penalty cannot be imposed. From the above observations and on careful perusal of the orders of authorities below, specifically the assessment order, we find that the assessee has been given ample opportunities of hearing and the AO has mentioned the dates with regard to opportunity given to the assessee to represent his case, however, the assessee has not complied the notice issued by the AO even after issuance of reminders by the AO to the assessee, the assessee has not bothered to comply the same, which enabling the assessee to frame the assessment u/s.144 of the Act. Accordingly, the above contention of the ld. AR of the assessee that the assessee gets immunity from the provisions of Section 273B of the Act, is rejected. - Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Validity of penalty order under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Jurisdiction and legality of notice issued under Section 153A(a).3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.4. Provision of seized documents to the assessee.5. Limitation period for imposing penalty.6. Applicability of reasonable cause under Section 273B.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Penalty Order under Section 271F:The primary issue was whether the penalty imposed under Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid. The penalty was imposed due to the assessee's failure to file the return of income in response to a notice issued under Section 153A(a). The assessee argued that the penalty order was illegal and beyond jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee failed to file the return despite multiple opportunities and reminders. The Tribunal noted that the penalty under Section 271F is mandatory for non-compliance.2. Jurisdiction and Legality of Notice Issued under Section 153A(a):The assessee contended that no notice under Section 153A(a) was issued or served, making the penalty order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal found that the notice was duly issued and served, and the assessee was given ample opportunities to comply. The Tribunal confirmed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had proper jurisdiction to issue the notice and levy the penalty.3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The assessee claimed that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was given before imposing the penalty, violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the assessee was given multiple opportunities to present their case and comply with the notice, but failed to do so.4. Provision of Seized Documents to the Assessee:The assessee argued that they could not finalize their accounts and file the return of income because the AO did not provide the extracts of the complete seized records. The Tribunal found that the AO had provided the necessary documents and had even issued reminders to the assessee to collect any remaining documents. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim was unfounded.5. Limitation Period for Imposing Penalty:The assessee contended that the penalty order was barred by limitation as it was served more than 45 days beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal clarified that Section 275 of the Act specifies the time for 'passing' the order, not 'serving' it. The penalty order was passed within the stipulated time, making it valid.6. Applicability of Reasonable Cause under Section 273B:The assessee argued that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the return of income, which should provide immunity from the penalty under Section 273B. The Tribunal found that the assessee was given ample opportunities and reminders to comply but failed to do so. The Tribunal rejected the argument of reasonable cause and upheld the penalty.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals, confirming the penalty orders under Section 271F for non-compliance with the notice issued under Section 153A(a). The Tribunal found that the AO had proper jurisdiction, followed principles of natural justice, provided necessary documents, and imposed the penalty within the stipulated time. The argument of reasonable cause under Section 273B was also rejected.