TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... admitting the petition, the same could be kept for final disposal at the stage of admission. This request was made as the decision on the interpretation of the law would have a bearing on a large number of reopening notices issued by the Revenue in respect of foreign assets/accounts. In these circumstances, the petition was adjourned to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission and it has now been taken up for hearing. 3. Brief facts : (a) The petitioner though born in India has migrated to United States of America on her marriage in 1996 (and since then has her permanent place of residence therein). From the assessment year 2000-01 onwards, the petitioner has been for the purposes of the Act a Non Resident. It has been so declared in her Return of Income and her status as NonResident is also accepted by the Revenue. (b) For the Assessment Year 2006-07, the petitioner filed her Return of Income on 29th March, 2007 declaring a total income of Rs. 37.96lakhs. This income was the aggregate of interest received by her on her bank balance in accounts in India, on delay in income tax refund being issued and on loans advanced by her in India. The Return was processed unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in respect of whom order dated 31st March, 2015 was passed were resident under the Act and only one of them like the petitioner is a nonresident under the Act. (g) On 31st March, 2015, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice seeking to reopen the petitioner's assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2015 was also issued to the petitioner. (h) The petitioner by her letter dated 1st September, 2015 filed her objections to the reasons as recorded by the Assessing Officer in support of the impugned notice. By an order dated 18th September, 2015, the Assessing Officer rejected the petitioner's objections leading to filing of this petition. 4. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel in support of the petition submits as under : (I) The impugned notice dated 31st March, 2015 seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2006-07 under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation in view of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. (II) In any case, the sine qua non to issue a notice under Section 147 / 148 of the Act is that the income chargeable to tax should have escaped assessment. In this case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Assessment Year. (e) The mere fact that the tax has been assessed in the hands of the wrong person in this case i.e. the Estate of Mr. Ramniklal Mehta by order dated 30th May, 2014 would not make the notice without jurisdiction. In support he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Income Tax Officer Vs. Ch. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239. (f) The mere fact that the petitioner is a nonresident, does not absolve her from paying taxes on the amount in the Account in view of Section 9(1) of the Act especially in view of the Indian connection. (g) De hors the fact that the Assessing Officer records reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment without application of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act, would not by itself exclude the Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act where a person is found to have an asset outside India, the reopening of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is deemed to be satisfied. (h) There is no reason in a fiscal statute to interpret the Act by examining the possible consequences resulting in absurdity. A fiscal statute is to be literally interpreted. It is not for the Courts to rewri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Executor i.e. uncle of the Petitioner stated that he is not in a position to give statement of the HSBC Geneva bank account. Further, when he was requested to fill up the Consent Waiver Form, the authorized representative of the uncle of the Petitioner by letter dated 23rd July, 2013 stated that the executor of the Estate of late R.N. Mehta i.e Mr. Dilip Mehta is unable to attend the office as he is nonresident and not present in India. We, therefore, asked Mr. Pardiwalla whether the petitioner could obtain the Consent Waiver Form from her uncle Mr. Dilip Mehta in respect of A/c. No. 5091404580 in HSBC Bank, Geneva. 9. At this Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew our attention to the letter dated 6th January, 2012 i.e. letter by which the Executor of the Estate of late Ramniklal N.Mehta i.e. Mr. Dilip Mehta states that the authority to operate the A/c. No.5091494580 is with the Directors of M/s. White Cedar. However, in the letter, there is no denial to his limited authority to operate account of M/s. White Cedar, being A/c. No. 5091404580 in HSBC, Geneva. Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Sr. Counsel seeks to rely upon para 11. C thereof to contend that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a Consent Waiver Form to the Income Tax Department or in the alternative Mr. Dilip Mehta could instruct the Director of M/s. White Cedar to apply for and furnish to him copies of the bank statement in A/c. No. 5091404580 of HSBC,Geneva. The fact that it is within the authority/power of Mr. Dilip Mehta to instruct M/s. White Cedar is evident from the letter dated 14th. August 2014 addressed by HSBC Bank, Geneva to M/s. Red Oak Operation Ltd. which has been taken on record and marked X for identification. This bank statement if obtained from HSBC, Geneva, would reveal and/or possibly give clues as to the source of amounts deposited in the Account No. 5091404580 of HSBC Bank, Geneva . Neither the Petitioner nor her uncle i.e. Executor of the Estate of late Ramniklal N. Mehta is ready to obtain the necessary statement either directly or through M/s. White Cedar from HSBC, Geneva in respect of A/c. No. 5091404580 by exercising or causing to be exercised the limited authority to instruct White Cedar to apply for and obtain the requisite information. In the normal course of human conduct if a person has nothing to hide and serious allegations /questions are being raised about the funds a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding legality of the proceedings. However, the fact remains that name of Late Shri Ramniklal Mehta or his Estate appears nowhere in the base note and bank account in the name of White Cedar Investment Ltd. was opened much later on 23.03.2004 after death of Shri Ramniklal Mehta who died on 07.04.2002. The actual beneficial owners of the said bank account are the assessee and six other persons and income should be brought to tax in the hands of correct persons. As discussed above, income of six beneficial owners is already brought to tax in their respective hands and income of the assessee is required to be brought to tax in her hand." 13. From the above, it is clear that the stand of the Revenue is that the names of the late Ramniklal N. Mehta or his executor - does not appear in the Base Note received from the French Government. Further, the bank account in the name of M/s. White Cedar was opened only on 23rd March, 2004 i.e. almost two years after the death of Shri Ramniklal N. Mehta. During the course of arguments, we understood the learned Additional Solicitor General to contend that the tax in the hands of the Estate of late Ramniklal N. Mehta is not correct and the Reve....