AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 2070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceeding to dispose them off through a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. We begin with the assessment year (AY) 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disposing off the appeal in violation of principles of natural justice. It is prayed that the adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted and accordingly the order ought to be treated as bad in law. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 272(A)(1)(C) of the Act. It is prayed that the said levy is without any basis a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee to explain the non-compliance. Once again, the assessee failed to comply. Thereafter, the AO issued a further show cause to the assessee on 30.08.2013, but once again the assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory reply before the AO. During the course of penalty proceedings, the AO issued a notice dated 05.12.2013 to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s 272A(1)(C) shall not be levied. In reply to it, the assessee filed a letter dated 21.02.2014 stating that he cannot give the 'Consent Waiver Form' for the HSBC Bank details, as they do not have any interest whatsoever in the said bank accounts. It was further stated by the assessee that he had been attending all the proceedings without any failure on his part and is c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how the penalty levied by the AO u/s 272A(1)(C) was unfair or unjustifiable, even though number of opportunities of being heard was given to him. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs.10,000/- by the AO. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that time and again, the appellant had submitted before the AO that it had no banking relationship with HSBC Geneva and had neither opened, nor operated nor received any benefit out of any bank accounts with HSBC Geneva as referred in the summons issued by the AO. It is also stated that the appellant was neither a Director nor a shareholder of the Companies whose bank accounts were mentioned in the summons. Further, the appellant is not the authorized signatory....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A Nos. 4438 to 4443/Mum/2017), Raj Parikh (ITA Nos. 4499 to 4504/Mum/2017) and Saunak Parikh (ITA Nos. 4505 to 4510/Mum/2017). The Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2018 held as under: "12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Ostensibly, the present proceedings are an offshoot of the assessment proceedings in the case of the captioned assessees for assessment years enumerated earlier. In the course of assessment proceedings, summons u/s 131 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer, i.e. ACIT Central Circle -9, Mumbai and in terms of such summons, assessee was, inter-alia, required to submit a duly filled and notarised Consent Waiver Form in connection with HSBC Bank, Geneva. It is also noteworthy that the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion is limited to 'compelling of production of documents', as obviously the Consent Waiver Form does not constitute books of account. A perusal of clause (c) of Sec. 131(1) of the Act would show that it empowers the income-tax authorities to compel production of documents; and, obviously, it implies that assessee is already in possession of such documents. It is quite well understood that when a law empowers an authority to compel production of a document from a subject, it is implied that the subject concerned is indeed in possession or expected to be in possession of the document. However, in the instant case, it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the said Consent Waiver Form was in possession of the assessee. A bare reading of....