ITAT allows appeal against Black Money Act Section 10(3) additions for foreign trust assets without actual investment

ITAT Chennai allowed the appeal challenging additions under Section 10(3) of Black Money Act, 2015 regarding undisclosed foreign assets in Windsor Trust and Dalham Trust. The assessee, though settlor and first beneficiary, proved all contributions were made by his son, a US citizen. The AO relied solely on CRS information without corroborative evidence like bank statements or proof of outward remittances. The Tribunal found the assessee neither contributed funds nor received benefits from the trusts. Enforcement Directorate confirmed investments were explained through bank loans. CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions without proper evidence. The Tribunal held that being a settlor doesn't automatically make one a beneficial owner requiring disclosure in ITR when no actual investment or income exists.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of invoking the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
2. Confirmation of additions towards alleged investments in Windsor Trust and Dalham Trust.
3. Levy of interest under section 40 of the Act read with section 234B of the Income-Tax Act.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Legality of Invoking the Black Money Act
The appellant contested the invocation of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, arguing that the authorities failed to furnish the alleged nature of the 'account' for effective rebuttal. The tribunal noted that the assessee was adequately informed and had opportunities to explain the source of investments, which he failed to do satisfactorily. The authorities had enough basis to invoke the provisions of the Black Money Act.

Issue 2: Confirmation of Additions towards Investments in Windsor Trust and Dalham Trust
The appellant argued that the initial contributions to the Windsor Trust and Dalham Trust were made by his son, Shri. Balaji Ramamoorthy, and not by him. The tribunal found that the appellant was the Settlor and principal beneficiary of the trusts, with significant control over them, including the power of revocation. Despite the appellant's claims, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the investments were made by his son. The tribunal noted that the appellant had not disclosed these foreign assets in his income tax returns and had not satisfactorily explained the source of the investments. Therefore, the additions made by the authorities were justified.

Issue 3: Levy of Interest under Section 40 of the Act read with Section 234B of the Income-Tax Act
The appellant contested the levy of interest under section 40 of the Act read with section 234B of the Income-Tax Act. The tribunal upheld the authorities' decision to levy interest, as it was a consequence of the undisclosed foreign investments.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the authorities were justified in invoking the Black Money Act and confirming the additions towards the investments in Windsor Trust and Dalham Trust. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the allegations. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the additions made by the authorities were upheld.

---