The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and refusal to fill a consent form can justify the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

ORDER

1. Present appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 31 ITA Nos.43/2022 & C.M.Nos.11917/2022 & 11921/2022 st October, 2018 as well as the order dated 20th January, 2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, wherein the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the order of the CIT with respect to non-compliance of the notice issued 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 pertinent to mention that vide order dated 20th January, 2022, the ITAT had dismissed the applications filed by the Appellant-assessee under Section 254(2) of the Act.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the Revenue had received documents from the French official sources, indicative of the fact that the Appellant-assessee was an account holder no.2 of a Swiss Bank account in HSBC Bank. The Appellant-assessee was requested to furnish the details of account opening form in respect of the foreign bank account, complete bank statements in original since beginning and residential status as per the Act as on the date of opening of the above mentioned foreign Bank Accounts. In the alternative, the Appellant-assessee was served with a notice calling upon her to co-operate and, inter alia, fill a consent-cum-waiver form. The form is set out in the documents annexed to these appeals and requires the Appellant-assessee's consent to enable the tax authorities to obtain information from Swiss Bank in respect of bank accounts held there. The Appellant-assessee disputes that she was ever an account holder in the Swiss banks.

3. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant-assessee submits that the Appellant-assessee was not obliged to fill such consent form as she was in no way involved in those transactions and/or she had no connection with the bank accounts. He further states that in the case of the Appellant-assessee, the protective assessment order has been deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 11th August, 2017. He submits that once a protective assessment order has been deleted, there is no question of any penalty being levied upon the Appellant-assessee. He also states that penalty proceeding initiated against the Appellant-assessee's husband had been dropped by the ITAT vide order dated 06th May, 2020.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the Appellant-assessee also submits that to ask the Appellant-assessee to furnish a consent letter is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Selvi & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.

5. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the ITAT in the impugned orders has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Mr. Sanjay Dalmia in ITA Nos.339-345/2018 wherein penalty u/s 271 (l)(b) of the Act was upheld for all the seven years arising out of the same search, relating to the same bank account and for the same reason of not filing the consent letter. The relevant portion of the order dismissing the appeals filed by Mr.Sanjay Dalmia is reproduced herein below:-

".......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.

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

6. The Special Leave Petitions filed against the aforesaid orders b