Penalty for failure to respond to statutory e-mail notices where notices sent to wrong email prevents penalty imposition; relief granted

When a statutory mode of service is prescribed, it must be strictly followed under the legal maxim expression unius est exclusio alterius, and alternate modes are impermissible; consequence: notices sent otherwise are invalid. The assessing officer issued notices to an email address not registered by the taxpayer and failed to serve notices on the taxpayers registered email, resulting in lack of knowledge of the notices; consequence: penalty under the relevant provision for non-compliance was not sustained and the penalty demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance with notices issued under section 142(1) is sustainable where notices were served on the assessee's husband's e-mail id instead of the e-mail id registered in assessee's name.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether notices required to be served in a particular manner were in fact served in that manner. The facts show the assessee had furnished and registered her own e-mail id with the Income Tax Department but the Assessing Officer sent statutory notices to the e-mail id of the assessee's husband. The Tribunal applied the legal maxim that where a statute prescribes a mode of doing an act it must be followed (Expression unius est exclusion alterium) and considered whether non-receipt of notices due to service on a different e-mail id constituted a sufficient cause for non-compliance.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that notices were not served on the e-mail id registered by the assessee and that such defective mode of service amounted to a sufficient cause for non-compliance; accordingly the penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) is deleted and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or the statutory scheme prescribes a particular mode of service, compliance with that prescribed mode is mandatory; defective service in a different manner vitiates subsequent penalties for non-compliance and constitutes sufficient cause to set aside such penalties.

---