Attempt any two out the following three sub-parts: (i) An Income-tax authority did not file an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against…

(a) (i) Under section 268A (1) , the CBDT is empowered to issue orders, instructions or directions to the other income-tax authorities, fixing such monetary limits, as it may deem fit, to regulate filing of appeal or application for reference by any income-tax authority. Under section 268A (2) , where an income-tax authority has not filed any appeal or application for reference on any issue in the case of an assessee for any assessment year, due to above-mentioned order/ instruction/ direction of the CBDT, such authority shall not be precluded from filing an appeal or application for reference on the same issue in the case of the same assessee for any other assessment year or any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year, if the tax effect exceeds the specified monetary limits. Further, in such a case, it shall not be lawful for an assessee to contend that the income-tax authority has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by not filing an appeal or application for reference in any case. In view of above provision, it would be in order for the Income-tax Department to move an appeal to the Tribunal against the orders of the CIT(A) in respect of A.Y. 2025-26 both for Shweta and Shefali, assuming the tax effect of each of them exceeds the specified monetary limits. (ii) Section 276CC provides for prosecution for wilful failure to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time, in a case where tax would have been evaded had the failure not been discovered. Since the amount of tax which would have been evaded does not exceed 25lakh, the imprisonment would be for a term of 3 months to 2 years. In addition, fine would also be attracted. However, in a case where the return of income is not filed within the due date, prosecution proceedings will not be attracted if the tax payable by a person, other than a company, on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid and any tax deducted at source, does not exceed - 10,000. In this case, even though the tax liability of the firm as per the original order of assessment exceeded - 10,000, however, as a result of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it got reduced to 9,100, which is less than - 10,000. Therefore, since the tax liability of the firm on final assessment was determined at 9,100 the prosecution proceedings are not maintainable. In Guru Nanak Enterprises v. ITO (2005) 279 ITR 30, where the facts were similar, the Supreme Court held that prosecution was unwarranted. (iii) Every assessee would be liable to tax@30% in respect of his undisclosed foreign income and asset of the previous year. Undisclosed foreign asset would be liable to tax in the previous year in which such asset comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Section 2 (2) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 defines “assessee” to include a person being (a) a resident in India within the meaning of section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the previous year; or (b) a non-resident or not ordinarily resident in India within the meaning of section 6 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the previous year but who was resident in India either in the previous year to which the income referred to in section 4 relates; or in the previous year in which the undisclosed asset located outside India was acquired. Mr. Rajiv is non-resident for the P.Y. 2024-25 (the previous year in which notice is issued by the Assessing Officer), since he returned to the Sigapore in April 2020 and visited every year only for 1 month. He was also a non-resident for the P.Y. 2012-13, when he acquired shares of listed companies in Singapore and P.Y. 2020-21, when he established a leather goods manufacturing factory in Malaysia, since he was in India only during the previous years from P.Y. 2013-14 to P.Y. 2019-20. However, he was resident in India in the P.Y. 2015-16, when he acquired one apartment in Canada. Accordingly, the issue of notice on Mr. Rajiv under section 10 of the Black Money Act, 2015, is tenable in law, in respect of apartment in Canda since he was resident in the previous year 2015-16 when the property was acquired. However, notice issued in respect of shares of listed companies in Singapore acquired in the P.Y.2012-13 and leather goods manufacturing factory established in Malaysia in the P.Y.2020-21 is not tenable in law, since Mr. Rajiv was non-resident in the previous years in which undisclosed assets were acquired and also in the previous year in which it comes to the notice of Assessing Officer.