Penalty under s.271(1)(b) set aside as COVID-19 movement restrictions excused non-response to s.142(1); s.273B applies

ITAT, Pune (AT) allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty under s.271(1)(b), finding that failure to respond to s.142(1) notices was excused by COVID-19 movement restrictions. Noting the SC's relief removing nearly two years from limitation and the pandemic's extraordinary hardships, the Tribunal held the assessee showed a "reasonable cause" and that s.273B applied. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the default; penalty therefore not sustainable.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the Tribunal should condone 306 days' delay in filing the appeal for want of "reasonable cause" and admit the appeal for adjudication.

2. Whether penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be sustained where the assessee failed to respond to notices issued under section 142(1) during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

3. Whether section 273B (reasonable cause) exempts the assessee from penalty where non-compliance with statutory notices was due to extraordinary circumstances (COVID-19 lockdowns and movement restrictions).

4. Validity of the penalty proceedings on the ground that the show-cause notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) was signed using a digital signature that had expired on the date of signing (additional ground raised but not pressed and therefore not adjudicated on merits).

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Condonation of 306 days' delay in filing the appeal

Legal framework: Appeals to the Tribunal are subject to prescribed limitation periods; delay may be condoned where "reasonable cause" is shown. The Court/Tribunal may apply established principles governing condonation of delay, considering whether the delay was intentional, whether the appellant gained by it, and whether there was a plausible explanation.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied higher-court authorities on condonation of delay (including established apex-court principles) to the facts and held that the delay was not intentional and that the appellant would not gain by filing late; these authorities were followed in admitting the appeal.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's affidavit and oral submissions that reasonable cause prevented timely filing. It found the delay non-intentional and that no prejudice arose from admitting the appeal. On that basis and by following controlling authorities, the Tribunal exercised discretion to condone the 306-day delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - delay condoned where reasonable cause is established, delay is not deliberate, and no gain accrues therefrom; discretionary relief granted consistent with apex-court principles. No obiter on auxiliary procedural points.

Conclusion: Delay of 306 days in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication.

Issue 2 - Sustainability of penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with section 142(1) notices issued during COVID-19

Legal framework: Section 271(1)(b) empowers levy of penalty for failure to comply with statutory obligations, including specified notices; however, section 273B permits waiver of penalty where the assessee proves that "reasonable cause" prevented compliance. Courts/tribunals may also consider extraordinary external circumstances (e.g., public health restrictions) in assessing reasonable cause.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on a controlling apex-court pronouncement that removed a period from limitation reckoning because of COVID-related difficulties, and applied its principles to the fairness assessment under section 273B. That apex authority on extension/adjustment of limitation during the pandemic was followed.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the dates of notices under section 142(1) (spanning late 2021 to early 2022) and concluded these fell within the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak period during which movement and access were restricted. The assessee, an individual residing in a rural area and lacking proper tax guidance, was found to have plausible reasons for non-response: pandemic restrictions and reliance on erroneous advice that penalty would automatically be deleted once the appellate result on the quantum addition was decided. Considering the extraordinary circumstances and the equitable relief embodied in section 273B, the Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated reasonable cause preventing compliance with the notices and that a liberal view ought to have been taken by the first appellate authority.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where non-compliance with statutory notices occurred during bona fide COVID-related restrictions and the assessee establishes reasonable cause, penalty under section 271(1)(b) must be deleted under section 273B. Obiter - remarks on the quality of tax advice received (rural assessee relying on guidance) are explanatory and not essential to the legal holding.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs.50,000 levied under section 271(1)(b) was deleted; the grounds challenging the penalty on merits were allowed.

Issue 3 - Applicability and scope of section 273B (reasonable cause) in pandemic circumstances

Legal framework: Section 273B permits waiver of penalty where the assessee shows that "reasonable cause" prevented compliance; the scope of "reasonable cause" includes external circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Equitable principles and jurisprudence on limitation and procedural compliance during emergencies inform the application.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed higher-court guidance that pandemic-related difficulties justify a generous view in condoning defaults and in interpreting "reasonable cause" for non-compliance. That line of authority was applied rather than distinguished.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated the pandemic as an extraordinary circumstance removing the practical ability to comply with notices and thereby activating section 273B relief. It emphasized that where the non-compliance stems from pandemic restrictions rather than deliberate evasion, penalty is not appropriate. The Tribunal also noted that the appellate authority should have adopted a liberal approach in such circumstances.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - section 273B applies to pandemic-caused non-compliance; reasonable cause is satisfied by demonstrating inability to comply due to COVID-19 restrictions. Obiter - comments regarding the interplay between quantum appeal outcomes and penalty deletion (as per the assessee's advice) are not essential to the holding.

Conclusion: Section 273B operated to relieve the assessee from penalty liability given proven reasonable cause arising from COVID-19 restrictions; penalty deleted.

Issue 4 - Validity of digitally signed show-cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(b) where the digital signature had expired (additional ground not pressed)

Legal framework: Validity of notices may be contested on procedural defects such as defective signatures; however, a party may abandon or not press such a ground, in which case the tribunal will not adjudicate on its merits.

Precedent Treatment: Not adjudicated - the additional ground attacking the validity of the digitally signed notice was expressly not pressed by counsel and was dismissed as not pressed; therefore no precedent was followed, distinguished, or overruled on this point.

Interpretation and reasoning: As the appellant did not press the additional ground, the Tribunal refrained from pronouncing on the technical issue of the expired digital signature. The point was therefore not considered on its merits.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Not applicable - the point was not decided.

Conclusion: The challenge to the validity of the digitally signed show-cause notice was dismissed as not pressed and was not adjudicated.

Cross-References and Outcome

Whereas delay in filing the appeal was condoned on the basis of reasonable cause and established apex-court principles, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-response to section 142(1) notices issued during the COVID-19 pandemic was deleted pursuant to section 273B, given the Tribunal's finding that pandemic restrictions constituted reasonable cause preventing compliance. The procedural ground concerning expired digital signature was not pressed and therefore not decided.

---