Dismissed

Sanjay Dalmia v. Principal Commissioner of

Delhi HC21 Mar 2018ITA/339/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed income tax appeals challenging penalty for non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1) to provide information on foreign accounts. Upholding ITAT findings, the Court held that given the prima facie material, any prejudice would have been avoided by compliance, rendering the penalty correct and upholding the lower authorities' view. No question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; penalty upheld.

Sanjay Dalmia Vs Principal Commissioner of — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~56 to 62

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- ITA 339/2018 & CM APPL. 11059-11062/2018

¶4

- ITA 340/2018 & CM APPL. 11063-11066/2018

¶5

- ITA 341/2018 & CM APPL. 11069-11072/2018

¶6

- ITA 342/2018 & CM APPL. 11073-11076/2018

¶7

- ITA 343/2018 & CM APPL. 11079-11082/2018

¶8

- ITA 344/2018 & CM APPL. 11083-11086/2018

¶9

- ITA 345/2018 & CM APPL. 11089/2018 & 11091-11093/2018

SANJAY DALMIA

..... Appellant

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-3, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent

¶14

Present: Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv. for appellant.

¶15

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

% 21.03.2018

¶19

The assessee in these appeals questions the order of the ITAT which had upheld the concurrent findings with respect to non-compliance of the notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) by the appellant/assessee and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. It is urged that the findings of the lower authorities are contrary to law.

¶20

The assessee was served with a notice calling upon him to co-operate and, inter alia, fill a consent-cum-waiver form. The ITA 339/2018 & connected matters Page 1 of 3

¶21

form is set out in the documents annexed to this petition and requires the assessee’s consent to enable the tax authorities to obtain information from Swiss Banks in respect of bank accounts held there. The Revenue had relied upon documents which it claims were received from French official source indicative of the fact that the assessee was an attorney holder of a Swiss Bank account holder in HSBC Bank. The assessee, of course, disputes that he was ever an attorney and by two letters stated that he was not obliged to fill such consent form as he was in no way involved in those transactions or that he had no connection with the Bank accounts.

¶22

The AO – as well as the appellate authorities including the ITAT were of the opinion that having regard to the nature and contents of the form, the assessee could not have refused to answer the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and therefore invoked the penal clause under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

¶23

Learned counsel submits that the action of the Revenue authorities is utterly unwarranted. It is submitted that unless there is some credible material or information requiring the Revenue’s further investigations with respect to the assessee’s complicity, there was no question of compelling him to answer to the letters and also submit the consent form under Section 142(1) of the Act. It is submitted that in the course of the search, no incriminating material was, in fact, seized from the assessee and therefore the penal consequence heaped upon him, is without authority of law. ITA 339/2018 & connected matters Page 2 of 3

¶24

This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. The material on the record indicates that the French official source shared information with the Indian Government with respect to accounts held in HSBC Bank. Prima facie, such material disclosed that the assessee was an attorney of some account holder. In the Court’s opinion, if the assessee really had no connection with such accounts, no prejudice could really have ensued to him if he would have complied with the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and filed the consent form.

¶25

In these circumstances, the penalty cannot be held to be erroneous or unwarranted. No question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed.

¶26

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶27

A. K. CHAWLA, J

¶28

MARCH 21, 2018 kks

¶29

ITA 339/2018 & connected matters

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Sanjay Dalmia v. Principal Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Dalmia v. Principal Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -3 Vs Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers (P) Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International TAXATION-2 Vs Nortel Network India International Inc.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International TAXATION-2 Vs Nortel Network India International Inc.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi Vs GS1 India (Formerly Ean India)

Sanjay Dalmia Vs Principal Commissioner of

Sanjay Dalmia Vs Principal Commissioner of