Penalties under ss.271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) deleted where s.142(1) non-compliance was not deliberate due to settlement steps under s.245D(1)/s.254D
ITAT, Chennai (AT) deleted penalties under ss.271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d), holding non-compliance with s.142(1) notice was not deliberate as taxpayers sought settlement under s.245D(1)/s.254D and acted on legal advice. The Tribunal noted the Settlement Commission initially treated the applications invalid, but the HC quashed that decision and remitted the matters to the Interim Board for Settlement. Subsequent assessment orders under ss.153A/153C were quashed by the HC, and with the applications restored, the ITAT held penalties were not warranted and allowed the appeals.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether penalty under section 271(1)(b) and/or section 272A(1)(d) is leviable for failure to comply with a notice issued under section 142(1) when the assessee did not respond to the notice but, within a short period, filed an application under section 245D for settlement on the advice of legal counsel.
2. Whether "reasonable cause" within section 273B is established where non-compliance with a section 142(1) notice occurred because the assessee, acting on legal advice, pursued the statutory remedy of filing a settlement application, and subsequent procedural developments resulted in quashing of the assessment orders.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) / 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with section 142(1) notice
Legal framework: Section 271(1)(b) and section 272A(1)(d) impose a fixed monetary penalty where a person fails to comply with a notice under section 142(1). Section 273B provides that no penalty under the cited provisions shall be imposable if the person proves there was "reasonable cause" for the failure.
Precedent Treatment: No specific precedents were invoked by the Court; the Court analysed the statutory text and facts of the case.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the penalty provisions are pari materia and that the sole foundation for the penalty was non-compliance with the section 142(1) notice dated 09.12.2019. The assessee(s) did not dispute the failure to respond but contended that the omission was not deliberate. The Court found that the assessee(s), after receiving statutory notices under sections 153A/153C, consulted legal advisors and, acting on advice to pursue settlement, filed an application under section 245D within 18 days of the section 142(1) notice. The Court treated the decision to pursue settlement as a bona fide course of action sanctioned by the Act and not as deliberate avoidance of the AO's notice.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court held that where a taxpayer, acting on professional legal advice, pursues a statutory settlement remedy promptly after issuance of a section 142(1) notice, such conduct can amount to "reasonable cause" under section 273B and preclude imposition of the fixed penalty under sections 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d). Obiter - ancillary observations on parity of the two penalty provisions and the characterization of the settlement process are incidental to the controlling conclusion.
Conclusion: The Court concluded that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) and section 272A(1)(d) was unjustified on the ground that the assessee(s) had reasonable cause for non-compliance with the section 142(1) notice, and directed deletion of the penalties for the assessment years concerned.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Establishment of "reasonable cause" under section 273B given subsequent quashing of assessment orders
Legal framework: Section 273B excuses imposition of penalty where the person proves reasonable cause for the failure referred to in the relevant penalty provisions. The availability of statutory remedies (such as filing an application under section 245D and litigating administrative refusals in writ proceedings) informs whether a failure was reasonably justified.
Precedent Treatment: No prior decisions were applied; the Court relied on statutory structure and factual developments in the administrative and judicial proceedings.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined subsequent events: the settlement application initially treated as invalid by the settlement authority; the filing of writ petitions challenging that treatment; and the final quashing of the assessment orders by the High Court, with remittance of the settlement application to the settlement authority. The Court reasoned that (a) the assessee(s) had pursued a prescribed statutory remedy promptly (filing under section 245D); (b) the initial administrative rejection did not negate the bona fides of the attempt; and (c) the High Court's later quashing of the assessment orders and remand of the settlement application reinforced that the course chosen by the assessee(s) was legitimate and not an attempt to evade compliance.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a taxpayer's failure to comply with a notice is attributable to actively pursuing a statutory settlement remedy and that remedy is later vindicated by judicial quashing of related assessments, such circumstances constitute reasonable cause under section 273B negating penalty. Obiter - the Court's characterization of the settlement authority's initial invalidity finding and procedural history are explanatory of the factual context rather than separate legal propositions.
Conclusion: The Court held that the combination of (i) prompt filing of the section 245D settlement application on legal advice, and (ii) later judicial quashing of the assessment orders and restoration of the settlement application, established reasonable cause under section 273B. Consequently, penalties under sections 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d) were not leviable.
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS / CROSS-REFERENCES
1. The Court treated the two penalty provisions as pari materia and applied the section 273B "reasonable cause" safeguard uniformly to both sections 271(1)(b) and 272A(1)(d).
2. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with a notice, though factually established, does not by itself compel penalty if the taxpayer demonstrates bona fide reliance on legal advice to pursue a statutory remedy and acts promptly to do so; subsequent favourable judicial outcome strengthens the finding of reasonable cause.
3. Result: All appeals were allowed and the penalties levied for failure to comply with the section 142(1) notice were deleted for the assessment years in question.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
