Penalty under Section 271B set aside due to denial of natural justice and insufficient hearing opportunity

ITAT Jaipur set aside CIT(A)'s ex parte order imposing penalty under section 271B for denial of natural justice. The assessee received initial notice in December 2020, followed by 22-month gap before November 2022 notice, then 19-month silence before three notices issued within short span in June-July 2024. ITAT held insufficient reasonable opportunity was provided for proper hearing and document collection. Matter restored to CIT(A) for fresh decision without commenting on merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction and validity of the penalty order under Section 271B.
2. Adequacy of opportunity and breach of natural justice by the CIT(A).
3. Confirmation of penalty by the CIT(A) as contrary to law and facts.
4. Procedural compliance by the CIT(A) under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
5. Best judgment assessment under Section 144 and its fairness.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of Penalty Order under Section 271B:
The assessee challenged the penalty order dated 30.04.2019 under Section 271B, arguing it was "bad in law and on facts" due to jurisdictional errors and other unspecified reasons. The penalty was imposed for non-maintenance of books of accounts, which the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated during the assessment completed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal did not explicitly address jurisdictional issues but focused on procedural fairness and opportunity for the assessee.

2. Adequacy of Opportunity and Breach of Natural Justice:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing a "reasonable and adequate opportunity" to be heard, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted the irregular issuance of notices, with significant gaps between notices and short response times, especially during the COVID-19 period, which hindered the assessee's ability to respond adequately. The Tribunal emphasized that "opportunity of hearing means opportunity of proper hearing," requiring reasonable time for compliance.

3. Confirmation of Penalty by the CIT(A) as Contrary to Law and Facts:
The penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was confirmed by the CIT(A), which the assessee argued was "totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts." The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the penalty itself but focused on procedural aspects, ultimately deciding to remand the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, ensuring the assessee is afforded a fair opportunity to present its case.

4. Procedural Compliance by the CIT(A) under Section 250(6):
The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to comply with Section 250(6), which mandates that the appellate order must be in writing, stating the points for determination and reasons for the decision. The Tribunal highlighted that the CIT(A) must dispose of appeals on merits, irrespective of the assessee's presence, and cited case laws supporting this requirement. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution without addressing the merits to be erroneous.

5. Best Judgment Assessment under Section 144 and its Fairness:
The assessee challenged the assessment under Section 144, arguing it did not meet the "best judgment assessment" standards, which require fairness and consideration of all relevant factors. The Tribunal did not specifically address the fairness of the assessment but emphasized the need for procedural justice and remanded the case to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, allowing the assessee to present its case fully.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, ensuring that the assessee receives a fair opportunity to be heard. The decision to remand was made without commenting on the merits of the case, focusing instead on procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the matter independently in accordance with the law.

---