ITAT sets aside Rs. 150,000 penalty under section 271B for lack of mandatory Joint Commissioner approval

The ITAT Delhi set aside penalty orders totaling Rs. 150,000 imposed under section 271B for failure to submit audit report under section 44AB within the stipulated timeframe. The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were incompetent and nullified because they lacked the mandatory prior approval from the Joint Commissioner. The Income Tax Officer failed to indicate in the penalty order that requisite approval was obtained before passing the order. Following the precedent in SAGAR DUTTA case, the Tribunal ruled that such orders are nullities and can be challenged at any stage. The assessee's appeal was allowed, with liberty granted to revenue to approach the Tribunal if prior approval evidence is subsequently produced.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for penalty imposition
3. Service of penalty order
4. Requirement of prior approval for penalty imposition

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of penalty under Section 271B
The appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, contending that it was initiated and completed without complying with the provisions of the Act. The appellant argued that the penalty order was unjust as there was ambiguity in the show cause notice regarding the default attributable to the appellant. The appellant also claimed that the penalty order was time-barred and required service on the appellant to be valid.

Issue 2: Compliance with procedural requirements
The lower authorities upheld the penalty, stating that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable cause for not submitting the audit report within the due date. The appellant's argument that the penalty order lacked prior approval from the Joint Commissioner was considered valid, citing Section 274 of the Act, which mandates such approval for penalties exceeding a specified amount.

Issue 3: Service of penalty order
The appellant raised concerns about the service of the penalty order, arguing that it was not properly served within the stipulated time limit. However, the tribunal found that the notice was served on the appellant through the verification unit, validating the service of the penalty order.

Issue 4: Requirement of prior approval
The appellant contended that the penalty order did not disclose obtaining prior approval from the Joint Commissioner, as required by law. Citing relevant case law, the tribunal concluded that the penalty order of Rs. 1,50,000 was passed without the necessary prior approval, rendering it invalid and liable to be set aside.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the penalty orders due to the absence of prior approval for the penalty imposition. The tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the necessity of obtaining prior approval for penalties exceeding the specified threshold.

---