Case Law Details
Jayanti Dalmia Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)
In this case ITAT has upheld the order of CIT with respect to non-compliance of notice issued under Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Appellant-assessee and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.
Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the Revenue had received documents from the French official sources, indicative of the fact that the Appellant-assessee was an account holder no. 2 of a Swiss Bank account in HSBC Bank. The Appellant-assessee was requested to furnish the details of account opening form in respect of the foreign bank account, complete bank statements in original since beginning and residential status as per the Act as on the date of opening of the above mentioned foreign Bank Accounts. In the alternative, the Appellant-assessee was served with a notice calling upon her to co-operate and, inter alia, fill a consent-cum-waiver form. The form is set out in the documents annexed to these appeals and requires the Appellant-assessee’s consent to enable the tax authorities to obtain information from Swiss Bank in respect of bank accounts held there. The Appellant-assessee disputes that she was ever an account holder in the Swiss banks.
Learned senior counsel for the Appellant-assessee submits that the Appellant-assessee was not obliged to fill such consent form as she was in no way involved in those transactions and/or she had no connection with the bank accounts. He further states that in the case of the Appellant-assessee, the protective assessment order has been deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 11th August, 2017. He submits that once a protective assessment order has been deleted, there is no question of any penalty being levied upon the Appellant-assessee. He also states that penalty proceeding initiated against the Appellant-assessee’s husband had been dropped by the ITAT vide order dated 06th May, 2020.
In any event, this Court is of the opinion that if the assessee really had no connection with the Swiss Bank accounts, no prejudice would have been caused to her if she had complied with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and filled the consent form. Moreover, it cannot be that penalty is upheld with regard to the attorney holder (Mr. Sanjay Dalmia) of the Swiss bank account and not with regard to the account holder no.2 (Appellant-assessee) qua the same bank account.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
