Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income And Assets) And Imposition Of Tax Act, 2015

S. 50: Punishment for failure to furnish in return of income, any information about an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India-Appearance of petitioner is dispensed with certain conditions. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 205]

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Tax payable reduced by advance tax paid and tax deducted at source did not exceed Rs. 3,000, initiation of prosecution under section 276CC was not sustainable and liable to be quashed. [S.139]

S. 276CC: Offence and prosecution-Failure to furnish return of income-Penalty deleted-There was no penalty or assessment because of subsequent orders passed by the competent authority, entire criminal proceedings against assessee were to be quashed. [S. 139 279]

S. 276CC: Offence and prosecution-Failure to furnish return of income-Assessment order and penalty order is set aside-The criminal proceedings pending against the assessee were liable to be quashed. [S.132, 139, 153A 271F,,276(2), 27C(1),Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, S 190(1)(1), 200]

S. 271C: Penalty-Failure to deduct tax at source-AO issued penalty 11 years after assessment order passed-Held, imposing penalty barred by limitation. [S.275 (1)(c)]

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Satisfaction is sine qua non for initiation of proceeding and penalty proceedings-Order of Tribunal affirming the penalty is set aside.[S. 260A, 274]

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the specific charge-Reason for levying penalty unclear-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S. 260A, 274]

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S. 260A]

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment—Annual letting value-Debatable issue-Not specifying the charge-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S. 22, 23, 274]

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Ground raised first time before High Court-After 23 years-Defects in the Notice-Principle of natural justice cannot be raised after 23 years-Assessee participated wholeheartedly in the penalty proceedings, however, later on before the High Court raised the objection in regard to the defect in notice-The assessee had understood the contents of the notice as to which two limbs falling u/s 271(1)(c) and complied with the SCN without raising any objection-Assessee not permitted to raise the question of fact before the Court-Hence, the Revenue’s appeal allowed. [S.260A, 274,Art. 226]