Penalty under Section 271B cancelled due to improper notice service and denial of natural justice

ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty u/s 271B. The penalty notice was served on incorrect email ID ([email protected] instead of [email protected]), denying effective opportunity to defend. CIT(A) passed order at 1:37 PM on the last day for response without waiting for office hours to end. Both assessment and appellate orders violated principles of natural justice by not granting reasonable opportunity for submissions. Matter remitted to AO for fresh adjudication after proper hearing.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal include:

(a) Whether the penalty proceedings under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act were validly initiated and conducted, given that the penalty notice was served to an incorrect email ID not registered with the assessee.

(b) Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 271B when appeal proceedings under Section 275 were pending regarding the determination of turnover, which was a disputed issue.

(c) Whether the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing in violation of the principles of natural justice, both at the stage of penalty imposition by the AO and at the appellate stage before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].

(d) Whether the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B from getting the audit done under Section 44AB, thereby justifying waiver of penalty under Section 271B.

(e) Whether the turnover was correctly determined by the AO for the purpose of penalty levy under Section 271B.

(f) Whether the penalty levied under Section 271B was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Validity of Penalty Proceedings and Service of Notice

Legal Framework and Precedents: Proper service of notice is a fundamental requirement under the Income Tax Act to ensure that the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to defend their case. Failure to serve notice on the correct address or email ID registered with the Income Tax Department renders the proceedings invalid and violative of natural justice.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the penalty notice under Section 271B was issued to the email ID [email protected], which was not registered with the assessee. The assessee's registered email ID was [email protected], as per the Income Tax portal. The AO had also issued notices under Sections 148A and 142(1) to incorrect email IDs unrelated to the assessee.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee produced screenshots from the Income Tax portal confirming their registered email ID and copies of the penalty notice sent to the incorrect email ID. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to serve the penalty notice effectively to the assessee.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the penalty notice was not served to the correct email ID, the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the penalty proceedings. This constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice and rendered the penalty proceedings invalid.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities but did not rebut the evidence of incorrect service. The Tribunal found the Revenue's position untenable given the documentary proof of incorrect email service.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings were defective ab initio for lack of proper service of notice, necessitating setting aside the penalty order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after proper service.

(b) Jurisdiction of AO to Levy Penalty During Pending Appeal under Section 275

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 275 of the Income Tax Act provides for appeals against certain orders, and it is generally held that penalty proceedings should not be initiated or concluded when the underlying assessment or turnover determination is under appeal, to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure proper adjudication.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted the appellant's contention that the turnover, which is the basis for penalty under Section 271B, was itself a disputed issue pending appeal under Section 275. The AO proceeded to levy penalty without awaiting the outcome of the appeal.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessment order dated 18/01/2024 was under appeal, and the appellant had requested the AO to keep penalty proceedings in abeyance. The AO ignored this request and proceeded with penalty.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the AO exceeded jurisdiction by levying penalty when the turnover determination was sub judice before the appellate authority. This was contrary to the bar on penalty levy during pending appeals under Section 275.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not satisfactorily justify the premature penalty levy. The Tribunal sided with the appellant on this jurisdictional issue.

Conclusion: The penalty order was passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed on this ground as well.

(c) Denial of Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing and Violation of Natural Justice

Legal Framework and Precedents: Principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case before adverse orders are passed. Section 250(2) mandates issuance of notice and opportunity to file written submissions before appellate orders.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) issued a notice dated 22/10/2024 granting time till 29/10/2024 to file submissions. However, the appellate order was passed on 29/10/2024 at 1:37 PM, before the end of office hours and before the appellant could file submissions.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant produced the notice and the time-stamped order to demonstrate that the opportunity to file submissions was effectively denied.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal relied on various High Court rulings emphasizing that orders passed prematurely on the last day without allowing the full time for response violate natural justice. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without hearing the appellant.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the timing of the order but argued on merits. The Tribunal held that procedural fairness was paramount and was not complied with.

Conclusion: Both the penalty order and the appellate order were passed in violation of natural justice principles, warranting setting aside and remand.

(d) Reasonable Cause under Section 273B for Non-Compliance with Audit Requirement

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 273B allows waiver of penalty if the assessee proves that failure to comply was due to reasonable cause.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant contended that disputes between partners and business discontinuation prevented audit under Section 44AB. This constituted reasonable cause.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the factual background of disputes and discontinuation but did not delve deeply into this ground given the procedural infirmities found.

Application of Law to Facts: Although reasonable cause may exist, the Tribunal emphasized that the penalty proceedings must be validly initiated first to consider this defense.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not specifically rebut the reasonable cause claim but relied on penalty levy.

Conclusion: This ground remains open for fresh consideration after proper proceedings.

(e) Determination of Turnover for Penalty Levy

Legal Framework and Precedents: Turnover is a critical factor for penalty under Section 271B, and its correct determination is essential. Disputed turnover issues should be resolved before penalty imposition.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellant challenged the AO's determination of turnover as erroneous.

Key Evidence and Findings: The turnover was disputed and under appeal.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that penalty could not be justified on an incorrect or disputed turnover figure.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not establish correctness of turnover determination.

Conclusion: Penalty based on disputed turnover is not justified; issue to be reconsidered post appeal disposal.

(f) Justification for Levy of Penalty under Section 271B

Legal Framework and Precedents: Penalty under Section 271B is leviable for failure to get accounts audited as required under Section 44AB unless reasonable cause is shown.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Considering the procedural lapses and disputed facts, the Tribunal found that penalty levy was premature and unjustified.

Key Evidence and Findings: Lack of proper notice, denial of hearing, disputed turnover, and reasonable cause claims weighed against penalty.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that penalty could not be sustained without proper adjudication respecting procedural safeguards and factual disputes.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's reliance on lower orders was rejected due to procedural and jurisdictional infirmities.

Conclusion: Penalty levy was not justified on facts and law; matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

"No effective opportunity was granted to the assessee before imposing penalty as the penalty notice was not served to the correct email ID registered with the Income Tax Department."

"The order passed by the CIT(A) on the last date before the expiry of time granted for filing submissions, without waiting for the office hours, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice."

"Penalty proceedings initiated and penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without jurisdiction, while appeal against turnover determination is pending, are liable to be quashed."

"Both the assessment order and appellate order are set aside for violation of natural justice and the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee."

Core principles established include the requirement of proper service of notice to the registered email ID, adherence to procedural fairness and natural justice in penalty proceedings and appeals, and the necessity to await disposal of appeals on disputed turnover before levying penalty under Section 271B.

Final determinations on each issue favored the appellant, resulting in setting aside the penalty order and appellate order, and remand for fresh consideration in compliance with law and natural justice.

---