2025 (11) TMI 637 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal restored and remitted for fresh consideration; assessee given chance to file submissions, penalty under s.271(1)(b) dismissed.

ITAT Mumbai (AT) restored the appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The tribunal noted ... Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) - assessee did not produce any evidence in support of his claim during the appellate proceedings - assessee was unaware of the non-compliance during the assessment proceedings as well as penalty proceedings as the authorised representative of the trust did not attend to the case properly HELD THAT:- As regards the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Reuters Asia Pacific [2024 (5) TMI 386 - ITAT MUMBAI] we note that the facts of the present case are different. In the case of Reuters Asia Pacific, the assessment order was unsigned and, therefore, the same was held as invalid which is not the issue in present case. It is noted that the appeal against the assessment order u/s. 144 dated 25.12.2018 was filed before Ld. CIT(A) and the same has not yet been decided. However, the subsequent penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b) has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) while the quantum appeal remains pending. Under these facts and circumstances and especially since the assessee had requested for further time to furnish fresh statements of facts before the Ld. CIT(A) we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity to the assesses to make his submission on the issue. The appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the alleged procedural irregularity in issuance of a demand notice one day prior to the signature date of the penalty order and issuance by different officers renders the penalty order void or illegal. 2. Whether the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with notices, without considering the assessee's request for time to file a fresh statement of facts and grounds and despite change of authorised representative, violated principles of natural justice and required restoration for fresh consideration. 3. Whether the coordinate-bench decision relied upon by the appellant is determinative of the present controversy or distinguishable on facts. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of penalty/demand process where demand notice predates the penalty order signature and different officers signed documents Legal framework: Penalties under section 271(1)(b) are imposed by a competent assessing officer by a reasoned order; demands for recovery are issued under section 156. Procedural regularity in issuance and signature of orders and consequential demand notices is required in administrative action. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal noted reliance placed by the appellant on a coordinate-bench decision where an unsigned assessment order was held invalid. That decision addressed lack of signature on an assessment order and its invalidity. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the factual matrix and held that the present case differs from the cited decision: the Reuters-type precedent involved a wholly unsigned assessment order rendering it invalid. In contrast, the present controversy concerned the sequence and signatures on penalty order and demand notice - the demand notice dated one day earlier and signed by a different officer than the officer signing the penalty order. The Tribunal did not treat this sequencing/signature discrepancy as automatically fatal to the penalty order on the facts before it. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Tribunal's observation distinguishing the coordinate-bench decision and declining to invalidate the penalty solely on the basis of differently signed documents is ratio for the present appeal; the statement that factual distinction is decisive with respect to Reuters is a binding conclusion in context of this decision. Any broader dictum about demands preceding orders is obiter insofar as it was not fully adjudicated against competing statutory or evidentiary contentions. Conclusions: The Tribunal declined to annul the penalty order on the narrow ground of the demand notice being dated one day prior and bearing a different officer's signature. The procedural irregularity as argued was not held to render the penalty order per se void on the facts before the Tribunal. Issue 2 - Whether dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance without allowing time to file fresh statement of facts/grounds violated natural justice and required remand Legal framework: Appellate proceedings under section 250 (appeals to Commissioner (Appeals)) require that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to present grounds of appeal and relevant submissions. Principles of natural justice mandate that an appellant be given reasonable opportunity to be heard, particularly where change of authorised representative or inadvertent non-compliance occurs. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on established appellate principle that appeals should be decided on merits where reasonably practicable and that dismissal for procedural non-compliance may be inappropriate where the appellant has sought time to cure defect and there is related pending litigation (e.g., pending appeal against assessment). The decision distinguished the Reuters precedent (which concerned unsigned assessment order); it did not follow Reuters as controlling for the procedural-hearing point. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed an appeal against the assessment order (u/s. 144) which remained undecided. The penalty appeal had been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance, despite the assessee having sought time (by submission dated 19.04.2025) to file a fresh statement of facts and grounds due to change in authorised representative and prior representative's dereliction. Considering that the quantum appeal was pending and that the assessee had expressly requested additional time to present its case, the Tribunal considered it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration after affording the assessee the opportunity to make submissions. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Tribunal's direction to restore the appeal for fresh consideration forms the operative ratio on the natural justice/procedural fairness issue: where an appellant requests reasonable time to file fresh submissions due to change of representative and the related substantive appeal is pending, the appellate authority should be given an opportunity to consider the merits rather than dismissing the appeal for non-compliance summarily. Observations distinguishing precedent are ratio to the extent necessary to support restoration; broader comments about administrative practice are obiter. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the assessee's request for time was inappropriate on the facts; the appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to file submissions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and remitted for de novo appellate consideration limited to affording opportunity and addressing the grounds. Issue 3 - Applicability of the coordinate-bench decision relied upon by appellant Legal framework: Reliance on precedent requires factual and legal congruence; distinguishability is a valid basis to decline following prior decisions. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal explicitly distinguished the coordinate-bench decision on which the appellant relied (which invalidated an unsigned assessment order) because the central illegality there-absence of signature-did not obtain in the present case. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the factual dissimilarity: in the cited decision the fundamental defect was the absence of signature on the assessment order; in the present case the defect alleged was a sequencing/signature difference between penalty order and demand notice. Given the different factual and legal contexts, the Tribunal found the cited decision not determinative. Ratio vs. Obiter: The distinction and consequent non-application of the cited decision is ratio to the extent it supports the Tribunal's refusal to nullify the penalty on that basis; any general pronouncement about precedential weight beyond that distinction is obiter. Conclusions: The coordinate-bench decision relied upon was held distinguishable and not applicable to invalidate the penalty in the instant facts; the proper remedy was restoration to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration of the appeal on merits after permitting the assessee to file required submissions.