Received a notice from the Income Tax Department? Respond in this way and avoid penalty

Understanding Income Tax Notices: A Comprehensive Guide

When the Income Tax Department identifies discrepancies, instances of non-compliance, or other issues linked to a taxpayer’s Income Tax Return (ITR), it issues an official communication known as an income tax notice. These notices are issued under different sections of the Income Tax Act and call for prompt attention to avoid penalties.

What is an Income Tax Notice?

An Income Tax Notice can be defined as an official communication issued by the Income Tax Department to inform a taxpayer about discrepancies, missing details, delayed filing, or unreported income. Such notices may be sent irrespective of whether returns have been filed or not. It is important to first verify the authenticity of any notice on the official Income Tax Portal, as fraudulent notices are increasingly common. Once verified, the taxpayer must respond within 30 days of receiving the notice, since ignoring it can result in a penalty of up to Rs 10,000. Understanding the reason for the notice and submitting the reply only through the Income Tax Portal is essential to avoid further complications.

Here is a detailed overview of the types of income tax notices and the steps to take if you receive one.

Types of Income Tax Notices

  1. Intimation Notice – Section 143(1)

    This notice is issued after the preliminary assessment of a taxpayer’s ITR. The system-generated communication compares the details furnished in the return with information available in the department’s records. It indicates whether the return has been accepted as filed, a refund is due, or there are discrepancies leading to additional tax liability. It is not penal in nature but serves as an official summary of the reported income.
  2. Assessment Inquiry Notices – Section 142

    Notices under Section 142(1) are sent when the Assessing Officer (AO) believes the taxpayer has not filed their return or has left out essential details. These can also be issued even if a return has already been submitted, in cases where the AO suspects errors or omissions.

    Under Section 142(2), the AO may demand submission of books of accounts or other documents to verify the claims made in the return. This also allows the AO to examine income from sources beyond those declared. Section 142(3) notices are requests for written explanations on matters relevant to the assessment, which may relate to assets, liabilities, business activities, or other income sources.
  3. Scrutiny Notice – Section 143(2)

    When the AO is not satisfied with the information in the return or finds missing details, a notice under Section 143(2) is issued. This scrutiny notice is served within three months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed.
  4. Income Escaping Assessment – Section 148

    This notice is issued if the AO believes certain income has not been assessed during the regular process. It empowers the department to reassess the taxpayer’s income for the relevant financial year.
  5. Demand Notice – Section 156

    Whenever tax, interest, penalty, fine, or any other sum is payable as per an order, the AO issues a demand notice under Section 156, specifying the amount due from the taxpayer.

How to Respond to Income Tax Notices

To address an income tax notice effectively, follow these steps:

By understanding the types of notices and following proper procedures, taxpayers can navigate the complexities of income tax notices effectively and minimize potential penalties.

ED Imposes ₹3.44 Crore Penalty on BBC India and ₹1.14 Crore Each on Three Directors for FEMA Violations

Enforcement Directorate Fines BBC India for Foreign Funding Violations

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has imposed a significant penalty on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) India and its directors, alleging that the organization violated India’s foreign funding law. According to sources familiar with the situation, the BBC did not reduce its foreign funding in compliance with the 26% cap imposed on digital media organizations.

As part of the penalty, the BBC has been fined a total of over ₹3.44 crore, alongside a daily fine of ₹5,000 for every day beyond October 15, 2021, until compliance is achieved.

An unnamed ED officer stated, “We have issued an adjudication order on Friday, levying a penalty of ₹3,44,48,850 on BBC WS India, along with a fine of ₹5000 for every day after 15.10.2021 till the date of compliance, for violation of provisions of FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act), 1999.” Additionally, the directors—Giles Antony Hunt, Indu Shekhar Sinha, and Paul Michael Gibbons—are each facing fines of ₹1,14,82,950 for their roles in overseeing the company during the violation.

A FEMA investigation against BBC India was initiated in April 2023, following findings from a three-day Income Tax survey conducted in February of the same year at BBC offices across Delhi and other cities. The adjudication proceedings commenced after a show cause notice was issued on August 4, 2023, directed at BBC WS India, its three directors, and the finance head.

The ED officer elaborated on the nature of the violation: “On September 18, 2019, DPIIT (Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade) issued a press note 4, stipulating a 26% FDI cap for digital media under the government approval route. However, BBC WS India, a company with 100% FDI, engaged in uploading and streaming news and current affairs through digital media, did not adhere to this cap and maintained its funding at 100%, grossly violating government regulations.”

The Income Tax department’s previous survey highlighted concerns regarding the discrepancy between the income or profits reported by BBC’s various entities and the scale of operations in India. Reports indicated that evidence suggested “the company has not paid taxes on certain remittances,” as noted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in February 2023.

In response to the developments, a BBC spokesperson stated in February 2023 that the company is committed to cooperating with authorities and hopes to resolve the matter promptly. “The BBC is a trusted, independent media organization, and we stand by our colleagues and journalists who will continue to report without fear or favor,” the spokesperson added.

FEMA, enacted in 1999 following the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) of 1973, is a civil law designed to consolidate and amend laws related to external trade and payments, promoting orderly development and maintenance of the foreign exchange market in India. The ED has the responsibility to investigate suspected violations of foreign exchange laws and regulations and to impose penalties on those found in contravention.

Regarding the penalty, the BBC spokesperson remarked: “The BBC is committed to operating within the rules of all countries we are based in, including India. At this stage, neither BBC World Service India nor its directors have received any Adjudication Order from the Enforcement Directorate. We will carefully review any order when it is received and consider next steps as appropriate.”

EPFO Faces Penalty for Failure to Revise Pension Schemes

EPFO Ordered to Compensate Pension Subscribers for Delayed Revision

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has mandated the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) in Chandigarh to compensate three subscribers with Rs 50,000 each for failing to revise their pensions without valid reasons. The commission, consisting of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri, president, and member Rajesh K Arya, has further instructed the EPFO to revise and release the pension amounts, adjusting the previously paid Provident Fund (PF) amounts, within 45 days. Additionally, the commission prohibited the EPFO from demanding or charging any interest on the amounts to be adjusted during the pension revision process.

The complaint was lodged by Krishan Murari and two other employees of the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited in Chandigarh. They argued that they were covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952. Initially, the Act did not include a pension scheme; however, an amendment introduced in 1995 established provisions for employee pensions, stipulating that the pension fund should consist of a deposit of 8.33% of the employer’s contribution to the PF corpus.

According to paragraph 11 of the scheme, pensionable salary determination was defined, which initially set the maximum pensionable salary at Rs 5,000 and later increased it to Rs 6,500. The subscribers asserted that the pensionable salary limit was raised to Rs 15,000 through a notification dated August 22, 2014, which was effective from September 1, 2014. When they approached the Provident Fund Commissioner to demand a revised pension, their requests were denied, citing a cut-off date for opting into the revised pension scheme.

Since 2017-18, the complainants have persistently requested the EPFO to adjust their pensions in alignment with the revised amendment in the Pension Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. However, the EPFO has consistently delayed the matter on various grounds. Citing negligence, deficient service delivery, and unfair trade practices, the complainants decided to file a complaint against the EPFO.

In response, the EPFO raised objections concerning the wage details submitted by the employer and assured that necessary directions for further action were issued. They stated that once a reply is received, the cases would be processed accordingly.

After considering the arguments, the commission reiterated its directive to the EPFO, prohibiting the demand for any interest on the adjusted amounts during the pension revision. Furthermore, the commission ordered the EPFO to pay interest at a rate of 12% to each complainant from the expiration of 30 days following their applications, as stated in Section 17-A of the Employees Pension Scheme of 1952. The commission also mandated the organization to pay each complainant Rs 50,000 for the mental agony and harassment endured, along with an additional Rs 35,000 to cover litigation costs.

Zomato Faces GST Demand: Rs 17.7 Crore Penalty

Zomato Faces GST Demand Order of ₹17.7 Crore from West Bengal Authorities

Online food delivery aggregator Zomato has recently announced that it has received a GST demand order amounting to ₹17.7 crore, including interest and penalty, from the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue in West Bengal. The notification, which was received on Tuesday, pertains to the non-payment of GST on delivery charges along with associated interest and penalties.

In a regulatory filing, Zomato stated, “We believe that we have a strong case on merits and the Company will be filing an appeal against the order before the appropriate authority.” The demand order covers the period from April 2021 to March 2022 and confirms a GST demand of ₹11,12,79,712, along with an interest charge of ₹5,46,81,021 and a penalty of ₹1,11,27,971.

Zomato’s response to the initial show cause notice included clarifications on the matter supported by relevant documents and judicial precedents. However, the company claims that these factors were not sufficiently considered by the authorities during the order issuance.

In its statement, Zomato expressed confidence in its ability to contest the order before the relevant appellate authority, stating that it does not expect any financial repercussions for the company. This situation arises amidst a backdrop of Zomato receiving multiple tax demand orders from various authorities in recent times, highlighting ongoing regulatory scrutiny in the online food delivery sector.

As the company prepares to challenge the demand, it underscores its belief in the robustness of its case and commitment to navigating the complexities of the regulatory landscape effectively.

RBI Imposes Monetary Penalty on 3 NBFCs

RBI Imposes Monetary Penalties on Three NBFCs for Regulatory Lapses

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has recently imposed monetary penalties on three non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) for regulatory lapses and non-compliance with various RBI directives. The penalties, issued between September 3 and September 11, 2024, were levied on Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) Private Limited, SMFG India Credit Company Limited, and Muthoot Vehicle & Asset Finance Limited.

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) Private Limited faced a penalty of Rs 10,40,000 on September 3, 2024, following an RBI inspection based on the company’s financial position as of March 31, 2022. The penalty was imposed due to non-compliance with the ‘Know Your Customer (KYC)’ guidelines and other directives applicable to systemically important non-deposit-taking NBFCs.

On September 4, 2024, SMFG India Credit Company Limited (formerly known as Fullerton India Credit Company Limited) was fined Rs 23,10,000 for violating RBI’s Information Technology (IT) and cybersecurity guidelines. The RBI found that the company failed to include provisions for monitoring and oversight in its contracts with outsourced vendors, neglected to conduct IS audits for network and security systems, and did not retain critical audit logs.

Muthoot Vehicle & Asset Finance Limited was penalized Rs 7,90,000 on September 11, 2024, for failing to comply with RBI’s liquidity risk management framework and other relevant guidelines. The company had failed to disclose its Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) on its website, did not submit customer data to credit information companies, and failed to issue loan sanction letters in the vernacular language to vehicle loan borrowers.

The RBI clarified that the penalties were solely based on regulatory compliance deficiencies and were not judgments on the validity of any transactions or agreements. Additional actions may be taken by the RBI against these companies if deemed necessary. This is a clear indication of the RBI’s commitment to enforcing regulatory compliance within the NBFC sector.

Calcutta High Court Imposes Penalty Of Rs. 50K For Not Renewing Expired E-Way Bill 

The Calcutta High Court comprising Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Uday Kumar has imposed the penalty of Rs. 50,000 for not renewing the expired e-way bill.

“Since on the date when the vehicle was intercepted the goods were covered by a valid e- Way Bill which satisfies the requirement under Section 129 of the Act. However, that the mistake committed by the appellants in not renewing the earlier e-Way Bill which expired on 18.03.2022 the appellants should be put on terms,” the court said.

BACKGROUND

The allegation which led to an order of penalty being passed by the respondent authority is that the goods which were being transported by the appellants to Assam were covered by e-Way Bill which was valid upto 18th March, 2022. 

According to the appellants, on account of the breakdown of the vehicle the goods did not move outside the territory of the State of West Bengal and was stationed at Dankuni on 18.03.2022. The consignee in the meantime had sold the goods which were in transit to another purchaser in Assam and the goods were transported by the same vehicle after generating a new e-Way Bill on 22.03.2022. 

The vehicle was detained on 25.03.2022 and order of penalty has been passed on the ground of first e-Way Bill on 18.03.2022 had not been renewed/extended by the appellants.

A charge under Section 129 of the CGST Act and WBGST Act has been led against the appellants and ultimately resulting in an imposition of 200% penalty.

JUDGEMENT

The court noted that there is a violation committed by the appellants but the violation is not as grave enough to call for imposition of penalty at the rate of 200%. 

The court directed the appellants to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000 which will include both CGST and WBGST instead of 200% penalty as imposed by the authorities. Upon such the appellants are entitled to pay the said amount by agreeing to recover the sum of Rs.50,000/- from the bank guarantee which has been furnished by the appellants and upon adjustment the respondent authorities shall issue appropriate communication to the appellants’ bank to discharge the bank guarantee for the remaining amount.

Case Title: M/S Bitumix India Llp And Anr. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Revenue

Citation:  MAT/1011/2023 IA NO: CAN/1/2023

Click Here To Read The Judgement

All about Related Party Transactions – Part 4 (Disclosures, Audit Committee, Registers, Meeting notices, Penalties)

Disclosures

Companies Act 2013

Specified Transactions – Non Arm’s Length transactions & Material Arm’s Length transactions

To be reported vide Form AOC-2

LODR

Half yearly on consolidated basis

AS/Ind AS

All transactions

Audit Committee

  • Approval or any subsequent modification of RPTs
  • In case of RPTs other than those referred to in Sec 188, Audit Committee doesn’t approve but shall make its recommendations to the Board
  • For transactions referred to in Sec 188, Audit Committee may make Omnibus approval, after Board’s approval & subject to criteria specified by the rules.
  • Omnibus Approval means specifying :-
  1. Name of the RP
  2. Nature and duration of the transaction
  3. Maximum amount of transaction
  4. the indicative base price or current contracted price and the formula for variation in the price, if any
  5. Any other relevant information
  • Omnibus approval shall be valid for a period not exceeding one financial year
  • Omnibus approval shall not be made for transactions in respect of selling or disposing of the undertaking of the company

Independent Directors

Schedule IV – Duties of Independent Directors – Para 9

States that Independent Directors should “pay sufficient attention and ensure that adequate deliberations are held before approving related party transactions and assure themselves that the same are in the interest of the company”

Notice & Agenda

The notice of the meeting in which approval shall be granted should contain Board’s agenda which contains the following items:

  1. Name of the related party
  2. Nature of relationship
  3. Nature, duration & particulars of the transaction
  4. Advance paid or received
  5. Manner of determining the pricing
  6. Other commercial terms

Along with the notice, an explanatory statement should also be sent to the parties entitled to the notice of the meeting which shall include the following:

  1. Name of the related party
  2. Name of related Director, KMP
  3. Nature of relationship
  4. Nature of transaction
  5. Material terms
  6. Monetary value
  7. Particulars
  8. Other material information

Register

Form

  • Form MBP-4 – all contracts or arrangements to which section 188 applies
  • Once the entry is made – Authenticated by CS
  • Placed before the next meeting of the Board – to be signed by all directors

Inspection

  • Open for Inspection – Extracts/Copies may be given – within 7 days – Max fee Rs. 10 per page
  • Open for inspection at AGM also

Exemptions

  • For the sale, purchase or supply of any goods, materials or services if value < 5 lakh/year
  • By a Banking company – for the collection of bills – in the ordinary course of its business

Penal Provisions

Director/Any employee – entered into or authorized the contract or arrangement – in violation of the provisions of the Act

Listed Company – Rs. 25 Lakhs

Unlisted Company – Rs. 5 Lakhs