Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 4288
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Shri Amit Shukla, J, Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, ACJ
PARTAB GULABRAI TULSIANI DELHI – Appellant
Versus
ACIT INT. TAX CIRCLE 4(2)(1) MUMBAI – Respondent
Income Tax Appeal | ITA No. 448/Mum/2025 | ITA No. 449/Mum/2025 | ITA No. 464/Mum/2025 | ITA No. 463/Mum/2025 | ITA No. 482/Mum/2025 | ITA No. 483/Mum/2025 | ITA No. 537/Mum/2025 | ITA No. 538/Mum/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ashok Khandelwal, Akash Khandelwal
For the Respondents: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
The authority to tax a non-resident's foreign income hinges on evidence that the income accrued or arose from Indian sources, established through documented business connections.
Headnote:The Tribunal adjudicated appeals against orders of the Assessing Officer under sections of the Income Tax Act concerning undisclosed foreign bank accounts subject to review under DTAA. The proceedings highlighted challenges regarding the reopening of assessments based on prior contentions of Indian-source income. The Regulatory findings reinforced that the taxpayer was a non-resident and the Assessing Officer failed to substantiate income taxation under section 5 and 9 of the Act. The taxpayer's minimal stays in India and compliance due to unresolved queries on the overseas deposits culminated in favorable resolutions for all associated appeals.
ORDER
PER BENCH :
These appeals are filed by the aforesaid assessees against the orders of the Assessing Officer u/s. 254 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [„the Act‟], consequent to the directions given by the DRP-Mumbai, pertaining to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Since the facts and issues involved in all these appeals are common, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed-off by way of this consolidated order.
2. In ITA No. 448/Mum/2025 (AY. 2006-07), the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
1.The learned Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of 1. T. Act 1961 inspite of his satisfaction that the proceedings are liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014
2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149 (1)(c) of the 1. T. Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2012 dated 12.06.2012 and the base note having mentioned that the appellant was a British National and the HSBC account was opened on 16.02.1994, there could be no reason to believe that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment.
3.The action of the A.O. in rejecting the genuineness of bank statements provided by HSBC Switzerland inspite of Fresh Consent Waiver Forms submitted in the desired format and his 3 failure to obtain the information from Swiss or UK tax authorities directly through proper channel and inspite full cooperation extended by the assessee, is illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
4.The learned A.O. erred on the facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 11,28,15,433/- of peak amount appearing in the Base Note of the appellant, being a non-resident British National non-citizen of India was neither earned in India nor accrued or arise in India and much less received in India.
5.Without prejudice to the above, the learned A.O. erred in making addition even of the opening balance as on 01.04.2005 in the 5 HSBC account of US $ 24,51,431 which translates @ 44.61 to Rs. 10,93,58,346/- is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstance of the case.
6.The Action of the A.O. in charging interest under Section 234A and 234B of the 1. T. Act 1961 of Rs. 8,37,97,840/-and Rs. 8,53,14,543 respectively is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstance of the case.
3. In ITA No. 449/Mum/2025 (AY. 2007-08), the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
1.The learned Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of I.T. Act 1961 inspite of his satisfaction that the proceedings are liable to be dropped and the communication thereof made vide Email dated 25.11.2014.
2.The assessment is barred by limitation as the provisions of Section 149 (1)(c) of the I.T.Act 1961 would be applicable for reopening of the assessment of resident Indians as per the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2012 dated 12.06.2012 and the base note having mentioned that the appellant was a British National and the HSBC account was opened on 16.02.1994, there could be no reason to believe that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment.
3. The action of the A.O. in rejecting the genuineness of bank statements provided by HSBC Switzerland inspite of Fresh Consent Waiver Forms submitted in the desired format and his failure to obtain the information from Swiss or UK tax authorities directly through proper channel and inspite full cooperation extended by the assessee, is illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned A.O. erred on the facts and in law in making an addition of Rs. 1,64,76,028/-on account of difference between the peak bank balance as on December 2006 and the opening bank balance in the base note as on March 2006 of the appellant’s HSBC account, being a non-resident British Na
