Appeal allowed: foreign bank deposits held and operated by parents not taxable in assessee's hands under BMA

ITAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal, holding that disputed foreign bank deposits were made and operated by the assessee's parents from income earned abroad and therefore could not be taxed in the assessee's hands under the BMA. The Tribunal found the assessee reasonably unable to produce complete records since parents managed the accounts, and evidence (passports, birth place, business details) supported foreign source. It held the AO erred in assessing the deposits; directed deletion of additions and set aside the Ld. CIT(A) order.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the deposits in the foreign bank accounts, held by the assessee and his family members, should be assessed as undisclosed foreign income and assets under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA Act). Specifically, the court examined:

• Whether the deposits in the foreign bank accounts were initially made by the assessee's parents and subsequently inherited by the assessee.
• Whether the BMA Act applies to these deposits, given the assessee's claims of inheritance and the timing of the deposits.
• The adequacy of evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate the claim of inheritance and the origin of the funds.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The BMA Act is designed to tax undisclosed foreign income and assets. Under Section 10(3) of the BMA Act, any undisclosed foreign income or asset is subject to assessment. The Act does not apply if the foreign assets were acquired from income already taxed in India or from income earned abroad that is not taxable in India.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Tribunal focused on whether the deposits in question were indeed undisclosed foreign income or assets under the BMA Act. It considered the sequence of events and the explanations provided by the assessee, concluding that the deposits were made by the assessee's parents from income earned abroad, which was not taxable in India.

Key evidence and findings:

• The assessee's father was in business in Sudan, and the family had bank accounts in the UK, which were later transferred to Jersey.
• The assessee's mother managed these accounts until her death in 2017, after which the assessee became the beneficial owner.
• The assessee provided passport entries, KYC documents, and internal bank communications to support his claim of inheritance.
• The tax authorities accepted that funds were transferred between accounts, and the deposits were made before 2010.

Application of law to facts:

The Tribunal applied the provisions of the BMA Act, considering the evidence that the funds were inherited and the deposits were made from income earned abroad. The court found that the deposits were not undisclosed foreign income or assets as defined by the BMA Act.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The tax authorities argued that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentation to prove the origin of the deposits. The Tribunal, however, considered the constraints faced by the assessee in providing historical documents and accepted the available evidence as sufficient under the circumstances.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the deposits were inherited by the assessee from his parents, who earned the income abroad. Therefore, the BMA Act did not apply, and the assessment of the deposits as undisclosed foreign income was incorrect.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"The object of BMA Act was to assess the income that was not subjected to tax in India and which has been stashed away abroad. If an assessee is holding any asset abroad out of the income already subjected to tax in India, then the BMA would not be applicable."

Core principles established:

• The BMA Act is not applicable to assets acquired from income earned abroad that is not taxable in India.
• Inheritance claims must be substantiated with available evidence, considering practical constraints in obtaining historical documents.

Final determinations on each issue:

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made under the BMA Act, as the deposits were not considered undisclosed foreign income or assets.

---