2019 (12) TMI 611 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) - non-compliance of notice u/s 133(6) - failure on Assessee's part to furnish certain details as were sought by the A.O vide his notice issued under Sec.133(6) - HELD THAT - As is discernible from the order passed by the Jt. CIT, Mumbai, u/s 272A(2)(c), dated 30.12.2014, we find that the assessee in reply to the notice u/s 133(6), dated 19.12.2013, had declined the ownership of any bank account with HSBC, Geneva, and thus for the said specific reason had refused to sign the consent waiver form. Accordingly, the non- signing of the consent waiver form by the assessee was specifically backed by a reason given by the assessee, which in our considered view cannot be construed as a non-compliance of the notice issued under Sec.133(6) - In fact, there is nothing discernible from the records which could persuade us to conclude that any specific information/details as were called for by the A.O by his notice issued under Sec. 133(6), had not been furnished by the assessee. Be that as it may, we find that involving identical facts penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) was also imposed in the case of the father of the assessee viz. Shri Kanaiyalal B. Shah, which however was thereafter vacated by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal We are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition/sustaining of the penalty under Sec. 272A(2)(c) by the lower authorities. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed by the Jt. CIT under Sec. 272A(2)(c) is not justified - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Penalty under section 272A(2)(c) for non-compliance of notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Reliance on unauthenticated document for penalty confirmation.
3. Establishing genuineness based on personal details.
4. Consideration of submissions denying ownership of a bank account.
5. Non-submission of 'Consent Waiver Form' and implications.
6. Reasonable cause under Section 273B not established.
7. Reassessment proceedings initiated and dropped.
8. Applicability and sustainability of the impugned order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the penalty imposed under section 272A(2)(c) for non-compliance with a notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in confirming it and requested its deletion. The appellant denied ownership of a bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva, and refused to sign the consent waiver form, leading to the penalty imposition.

2. The appellant contested the reliance on an unauthenticated document, referred to as the Base Note, by the CIT(A) for confirming the penalty. The appellant argued that the document was not certified by any credible statutory authority or the bank in question, questioning its validity as evidence.

3. The CIT(A) sought to establish the genuineness of information based on personal details matching those in the Base Note. The appellant objected to this approach, indicating that personal details matching did not prove ownership of the bank account in question.

4. The CIT(A) was criticized for not considering the submissions, statements, and affidavits provided by the appellant to substantiate the claim of not owning the bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. The appellant's denial of ownership was not adequately acknowledged in the decision.

5. The CIT(A) was faulted for not appreciating the appellant's refusal to submit the 'Consent Waiver Form' due to concerns about making false statements regarding a bank account not owned by the appellant. The implications of submitting the form were highlighted as a reason for non-compliance.

6. The CIT(A) was accused of not recognizing a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act, despite the appellant's assertion of not being the bank account owner. The lack of ownership was emphasized as a key factor justifying the appellant's actions.

7. The reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 concerning the alleged bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva, were dropped in the appellant's case. This fact was raised to challenge the penalty imposition, indicating a lack of basis for penalizing the appellant.

8. The overall sustainability and legality of the impugned order were questioned, highlighting issues such as the failure to consider evidence, reliance on inadmissible material, and lack of due application of mind. The appellant sought the quashing of the order based on these grounds.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai.

← Previous Next →