Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The provisions of appeal would also applicable in any proceedings initiated under Section 43 of the Act,which empowers the tax officer to initiate proceedings of imposition of penalty on account of failure to furnish any incorrect particulars about the asset including financial interest in any entity located outside India.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Clause (6) of section 6 of the IT Act, relates to penalty for failure to furnish in return of income, information or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset located outside India. Clause 13 and Question No.17 of the Circular 15 reported on 6.7.2016 ibid conforms that the report in Schedule FA would not bring to tax to such undeclared assets, whereas in the instant case, assets have acquired out of non-taxable income earned by the assessee, while he was a non-Resident and thus the non-reporting of such non-taxable assets cannot attract the penalty as contemplated under section 43 of the Act. High Court dismissed the Writ petition holding that ”the Circular has no binding force and therefore, the challenge to the circular cannot be a ground to negate the plea of the petitioner. But the fact remains that whether the impugned order reflects the adherence to the provisions of the circular of 2015 ibid or in terms of the provisions of the Black Money Act, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot exercise the role of an appellate authority defined under the Black Money Act to deal with the controversy if brought into motion. Petitioner is well within the right to assail the aforementioned order, as the impugned order is dated 17.3.2020 and the limitation in the instant case expired during the lock down but as per the Government directive and judgment of the Full Bench of this Court limitation prescribed already stood extended. Petitioner if so advised shall be at liberty to assail the aforementioned order“. - THOMAS MATHEW V/s ITO - [2020] 315 CTR 193 (KER)