9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - ITA No.4666/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) - - - Dated:- 27-11-2019 - Shri S.Rifaur Rehman, Accountant Member And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Appellant by: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.R Respondent by: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-6, Mumbai, dated 05.03.2018, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-19(2), Mumbai under Sec.272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ). The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e application of mind, without considering the evidence on record, by purporting to rely on evidence which is clearly inadmissible and contrary to law and therefore the said Order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide on the appeal in accordance with the law. 2. Briefly stated, on the basis of India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (for short DTAA ), certain information was shared by the Government of France with the Indian government, as per which it was informed that some Indian nationals were holding foreign bank accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva. Acting upon the aforesaid information, the A.O reopened the case of the assessee under Sec.147 of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the A.O issued notices under Sec. 142(1) to the assessee and directed him to submit the copy of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short A.R ) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted, that the appeal filed by the assessee involved a delay of 46 days. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the delay in filing of the present appeal had occasioned on account of unavoidable circumstances on the part of the assessee. It was averred by the ld. A.R, that as the assessee during the relevant point of time i.e 15.04.2018 till 27.06.2018 was travelling within and outside India for his business purpose, therefore, inadvertently the appeal which was to be filed latest by 17.06.2018 could not be filed within the stipulated period. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the aforesaid delay was for bonafide reasons, therefore, in all fairness the same may be condoned. In support of her aforesaid claim for condonation of delay, the ld. A.R had relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthi (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 123 (SC). 5. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R ) did not object to the seeking of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h certain details as were sought by the A.O vide his notice issued under Sec.133(6), dated 19.12.2013. As is discernible from the order passed by the Jt. CIT, Mumbai, under Sec. 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) of the Act. 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 under Sec.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 i.e ITAT H Bench, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
