TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal") in the wealth tax proceedings of the Appellant for AY's 2007-08 to 2013-14, wherein vide order dated 24 December 2020 (bearing Wealth Tax Appeal Nos.2 to 8/Mum/2020), it has been held as under: a) That the Appellant was nominated as one of several beneficiaries of an offshore irrevocable discretionary trust, settled in the year 1989 by the Appellant's non-resident late maternal uncle Shri Pratap Malpani, governed by the laws of Guernsey ("Malpani Trust"). b) That the Appellant was not a contributor to the Malpani Trust structure. c) That the Appellant is not liable to be construed as sole beneficiary of the Malpani Trust. d) That the Revenue cannot collapse the offshore trust structure i.e., corporate veil cannot be lifted, since offshore entities are independent entities are taxable in their respective jurisdictions. e) That the Appellant was not the 'substantial owner' of assets held by Kinetic Holdings Ltd. f) That bank accounts in foreign jurisdictions pertaining to offshore entities of the offshore trust could not be treated as bank accounts of Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal in the Wealth Tax Proceedings of the Assessee/Appellant. 3. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lower Authorities erred in invoking the provisions of BMA (reserving the Appellant's position as to constitutionality thereof) overlooking that the alleged foreign assets and/or income purported to be brought to tax in the hands of the Appellant were not sourced from India, and die legal ownership whereof was vested in the offshore discretionary trust(s) and/or corporate entities within the framework of such offshore discretionary trust(s); as such precluding authority in law to seek to bring to tax in the hands of the Appellant such foreign assets and/or income, whose 'situs' was not India, and which remained amenable to tax strictly in their offshore jurisdictions. 4. That, the Revenue has failed to appreciate the distinction between "undisclosed" and "part disclosure". The Appellant prays that based on the facts and information available with the Lower Authorities, the question of any jurisdiction based on such facts having been duly undisclosed does not arise and hence the CIT(A) order ought to be quashed along with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in particular, were the subject-matter of a letter dated 28 August 2017, wherein it was concluded by Revenue that "As to the submissions of the assessee that formation of Avit Investment Ltd./Kinetic Holdings Ltd. and related entities/structures by Pratap Malpani took place in the early and mid-1980 's is concerned, the same is not disputed at present but this information needs to be thoroughly and independently enquired and investigated into; as such, the Revenue had no power to approbate and reprobate, including through purporting to contend that certain instruments of migrated trust (including Bird International Foundation) were unavailable with Revenue, despite these very instruments coming to be furnished to the Appellant as part of the FT&TR documents provided inspection of to the Appellant, and therefore available on the files of the Revenue. 7. That the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred, in law, in purporting to rely upon certain documents produced by the AO which are unsigned, unstamped and have no record of formal receipt by the concerned FT&TR division, and hence cannot be considered as valid evidence under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led opinion of foreign lawyers Reichlin Hess dated 11 January 2016 on this issue, has been erroneously overlooked by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Hon'ble Tribunal has duly considered the factual position in its order under the Wealth Tax Proceedings. 12. That the Lower Authorities have erred in concluding that the provisions of BMA were applicable to the Appellant in circumstances by disregarding the fact that the trust structure had not effected any distribution to the beneficiaries, and as such no income was capable of being brought to tax in the hands of the Appellant. These facts had inter alia been corroborated by certificates of the original and the easting Guernsey trustees, i.e. Michael Collins on 7 March 2016, and Confiance Limited, Guernsey on 15 and 24 March 2016, which -was not disputed by the Revenue. 13. The Lower Authorities misplaced reliance upon retracted statements of Shri G L Lath and failure to consider that Shri G L Lath's statements constituted 'hearsay evidence' which had no standing in law, and similarly, reliance upon purported statement of Ms. Nita Shivdasani without grant of opportunity for cross-examination, thus violate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing, despite having been sought by the Appellant. The Appellant has merely been provided an opportunity to discuss the case telephonically, wherein such a matter could not have been explained in detail. Thus, the above is contrary to the principles of natural justice, and liable to quashed in limine. 18. The Appellant prays that until the disposal of this appeal or such time, a stay be granted against the implications arising from the proceedings before the CIT(A) filed u/s. 15(l)(a) that may result in quantification of the amount of tax payable, against the order passed u/s. 10(3) of the Act. The same could lead to multiplicity of proceedings, with the possibility of such proceedings becoming meaningless if ultimately the order passed by the Lower Authorities is found to be invalid on grounds of jurisdiction; and undue hardship to the Appellant if the apparent unlawful and unrealistic demand arising on account of non-appreciation of entire facts of the case and consequential settled legal position, is made to be recovered. This in turn would not be in consonance with the powers of the Tribunal to ensure that the fruits of success in such appeals are not rendered meani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Hon'ble income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) u/s 245D dated 27th September, 2017 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the same is pending. Having said so, it was requested to keep the notice u/s 10(1) in abeyance. The claims of the assessee are perused and they are dealt with as under:- 3. The assessee has simply stated certain case specific facts and requested for keeping the notice issued u/s 10(1) of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA, 2015) in abeyance. It is to be noted that the WP filed by the applicant against the order of the hon'ble ITSC dated. 29th September, 2017 is under Income Tax Act, 1961 but the notice issued to the assessee u/s 10 (1) is related to the Black Money, 2015. These two things are quite different and can never be clubbed as scheme of taxation is completely different. Further, the AY for which WP filed is different (AY 1998-1999 to 2014-15) from the AY for which notice u/s 10 (1) of BMA, 2015 (AY 2016-17) issued. Hence, the claims of the assessee and his request to keep the notice u/s 10(1) in abeyance is emanating from his lack of awareness of the scheme and purpose of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t applies; or b. which is assessable or has been assessed to tax for any assessment year under this Act, shall be reduced from the value of the undisclosed asset located outside India, if, the assessee furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the asset has been acquired from the income which has been assessed or is assessable, as the case may be, to tax". 4.5. On perusal of the clause (ii) to the section 5, it is very clear that: where the assessments related to foreign asset and income have been covered under the Income-Tax Act and such income only to be reduced from the income assessed under BMA, 2015, but not vice-a-versa. In other words, undisclosed foreign asset and income have to be assessed under Black Money Act only from the AY 2016-17. It is to be noted that this act came into force w.e.f 1st July, 2015 and hence the first year of assessment under BMA is AY 2016-17. In cases where foreign income or assets were assessed under Income Tax Act, 1961, before the application of the BMA, 2015, the assessee can seek reduction to the extent assessed under IT Act, 1961 from the total income assessed under BMA, 2015. But the reverse is not possibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Bombay High Court. Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed an order in the said Write Petition (L) No. 7887 of 2021 dated 30.3.2021, which read as under :- IN THR HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.7887 OF 2021 Yashovardhan Birla .. Petitioner. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 4(1) & Others .. Respondents. Ms. Fereshte Sethna with Mr. Munir Merchant, Mrunal Parekh, Mr. Chirag Naik, Mr. Hasmukh Ravaria, Ms Vaijayanti Sharma i/b. MZM Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Anil C. Singh, ASG with Mr. Sham Walve, for the Respondents. CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATE: 30^th MARCH 2021. P.C:- Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seeks mandamus to have infrastructural facility in place for disposal of appeal preferred by the Petitioner on jurisdictional issue against the order dated 17th January, 2019. The same has been pending. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, requests for its disposal have not been responded to. 2. Learned ASG on behalf of the Respondent submits that it is not a case that no infrastructure facility....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in issuing a notice under section 10(1) of the BMA on 22 November 2017, without appreciating that the starting point under the BMA is a return of income filed for the relevant assessment year under the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereas it was available to the Appellant to file a return of income for the relevant assessment year until 31 March 2018, i.e. well beyond the date of the purported notice under section 10(1) served upon the Appellant, and as such the notice issued to the Appellant was premature and bad in law. 5. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in invoking the provisions of section 4 of the BMA against the Appellant, disregarding that section 4 applies in case of undisclosed foreign asset and/or income, overlooking that in a preceding year when the Appellant did in fact have a beneficial interest in a foreign discretionary trust structure, such a disclosure of beneficial interest, albeit not an 'asset', was validly made under the aegis of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, after apprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned CIT(A) referred to the provisions of section 15(1)(b) of the BMIT Act as under :- 15. Appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals).- (1) Any person,- (a) objecting to the amount of tax on undisclosed foreign income and asset for which he is assessed by the Assessing Officer; or (b) denying his liability to be assessed under this Act; or (c) objecting to any penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer; or (d) objecting to an order of rectification having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund; or (e) objecting to an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee for a rectification under section 12, may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) 8. Referring to the above section learned CIT(A) noted that under section assessee is not allowed to raise any other ground relating to the assessment as these are appealable under remaining limbs of the sub-section. Thereafter learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal spanning various issues related to the letter of the AO disposing off the jurisdictional objection raised by the assessee before him. That in his view, Section 15(l)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the given case, no doubt the assesses is vested with the power to appoint or remove the trustees, does not change the status of the trust and its independent functioning." "32. In conclusion, it clearly indicates that the offshore assets held ly the offshore trust, which is irrevocable discretional trust in which assessee is one of the beneficiary, who happens to be bestowed with right to appoint /reappoint the trustees, it does not inherit the right or control over the trust. As per the declaration of the trust, the trust remains an independent entity and taxable entity outside India. The entities controlled by the trust are independent taxable entities outside India. Therefore, assessee can only be a beneficiary and remain a beneficiary." 10. Submission also included that the appellant is pursuing income tax proceedings under which notice have been issued and assessment made for A.Ys.2008-09 to 2013-14, A.Ys. 1998-99 to 2007-08 & A.Y. 2014-15. It was submitted that Revenue continues to pursue the right to assess to tax the assessee for the offshore trust assets under Income Tax Act these must stand excluded from the remit of BMA (this submission is advanced without p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) Annexure A-4 being a general letter from one M B Collins dated 7th March 2016 (v) Annexure A-5 being a letter on the letter head of 'Confiance Limited' addressed to Yashovardhan Birla clarifying certain issues." 12. Learned CIT(A) thereafter noted that the assessee's counsel has filed further explanatory comments which was reproduced as under :- a) The appellant has been conclusively adjudicated by the final fact-finding authority under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to have held limited interest in the offshore irrevocable discretionary trust(s), as only one of several beneficiaries of such trust structures, with no distribution by the trustees ever made to the Appellant and which is duly disclosed by the Appellant in the Schedule FA of the Income Tax Return for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16. Copy of Schedule FA for AY 2014-15 & AY 2015-16 is enclosed in Annexure 1. b) Letter dated 28 August 2017 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 2 issued to Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) concedes trusts created by Pratap Malpani. Further, it is conclusively established that the equity interests in Kinetic Holdings Limited belonged to (Late) Prata....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission, learned CIT(A) proceeded to adjudicate the issue. 14. Firstly he rejected the assessee's reliance upon the ITAT, Mumbai decision in assessee's own case in WTA No. 02 to 08/Mum/2020 vide order dated 24.12.2020 by holding that it was not in existence at the time of issue of notice under section 10(1) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. That the documents not in existence at the time of issue of notice, cannot be taken as evidence while deciding the issue. After having held so, learned CIT(A) further proceeded to distinguish the ITAT decision and also at the same time held that the same was not in existence at the time of issue of notice. He noted that provisions of BM Act are admittedly harsher and address the issue of beneficial ownership/beneficiary irrespective of the ownership shown in relevant docuemnts. That hence, any decision under Wealth Tax Act where the concept of 'beneficial ownership' or mere 'beneficiary' is not there, cannot be imported to decide the issues in BM Act. Thereafter learned CIT(A) observed that since the appeal papers did not contain the documents/information which had been before the Assessing Officer at the time of issue of notice under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment through coercion and that such waiver was not to be implemented. This led to the Bank not sharing any worthwhile information with the Department. This was contrary to the fact the assessee could obtain a letter from the same bank by writing a letter to the Bank and obtaining a reply on the same day. This could happen only if the assessee had a close association with the Bank as against his denial of any relationship. The AO notes that the close associate of the assessee has confirmed in his statement that the assessee closed the accounts with HSBC in 2011 and got amounts in the bank account transferred to Barclays , indicating his beneficial ownership of this account. 8.2 Details obtained under Exchange of Information under the Treaty arrangement established existence of offshore entitles in which the assessee was the sole beneficiary / beneficial owner of the assets in these entities. These accounts are: LIST OF BANK ACCOUNTS IN SINGAPORE Bank Branch A/c no Name of Account Credit Suisse AG Singapore 125042 Mokopane Ltd Credit Suisse AG Singapore 125114 Kinetic Holdings Ltd Credit Suisse AG Singapore 125132 Alea Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nk accounts and investments therein which had close proximity with the appellant. Post-search, documents were collected from various countries under EOI agreements leading to detection of undisclosed offshore accounts / investments in the name of companies, LLPs, Trusts and Foundations in which the assessee was clearly identified by these banks/institutions as beneficial owner / Asset contributor. The AO noted that an elaborate structure was putup by the assessee with front entities whose bank accounts were effectively controlled by the assessee and intermediate and back end entities to mask the ownership of the front end entities. The front end companies listed by the AO are: S.N NAME OF THE OFFSHORE FRONT ENTITIES (i) Kinetic Holdings Limited (ii) Alea Management Ltd (iii) Herritor Investments limited (iv) Mokopane Limited (v) Sorwood Corporation SA (vi) Anrid LLC (vii) Magenta Property Investments Ltd (viii) Manwell Investment Properties Ltd (ix) Manwell Investments Ltd (x) The Banyan Trust (Panama) (xi) The Banyan Trust (Guernsey) (xii) Confiance Ltd as Trustee of The Banyan Trust (xiii) Nebola ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Schedule identifies the "Beneficiaries" as the son of Mr. and Mrs. Ashok Vardhan Birla: Yashovardhan Birla and his family and descendants The Third Schedule Identifies the Protectors as Mr. Andrew Hart and Mr, Geffrey Spencer. The AO notes that the Foundation was set up only to act as a front for the assessee to hold assets/investments through other fiduciaries and front companies. The Foundation was in existence for about 1 year from 17.09.2010 to 02.11.2011. As per the letter dated 20.04.2012 from Confiarcce Ltd to Credit Suisse AG, Singapore in connection with Mokopane Ltd, it is confirmed that they are the trustees of The Banyan Trust and that the settlor of the Trust is mentioned as The Bird international Foundation which has been dissolved on 02.11.2011. It is further confirmed that the asset contributor of the Trust is Mokopane Ltd which is corroborated by the funds transfer from the accounts of Mokopane Ltd. As per further letter dated 24.04.2012 addressed to Credit Suisse AG, Singapore in connection with Mokopane Ltd, it is confirmed by Confiance Ltd that the asset contributor of the Trust 4s Shri Yashouardhan Birla and Beneficiary of the Trust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s seen from the above entries. The liquidation fees for Nebola Trust Reg. have been paid from the account of another front company of the assesses, revealing the nexus of all these entities. 4. THE BANYAN TRUST* (PANAMA) The Banyan Trust* (Panama) is mentioned In the documents available on the bank records which show that the trust was created by The Bird International Foundation with the assessee as the sole beneficiary. Thereafter, through other fiduciaries, the shares of front entities including Mokopane Limited, Manwelf investments Ltd, Alea Management Limited, Magenta Properties Ltd etc., were brought under the direct control of the Foundation through The Banyan Trust from the year 2010-11 onwards. As per the bank documents of Alea Management Ltd and Mokopane Ltd, the beneficial owner of the assets in their name is identified as the assesses through a trust which Was created by The Bird International Foundation on 04-05.2011 as the "Settlor" arid the Trust was registered in Panama, Address of this Trust is the same as the Foundation, at 53rd East Street, Marbella, MMC Building, 2nd Floor, Panama, However, copy of Trust Deed has not been provided in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmed by the declaration of beneficial holding available on the documents of account no.12504-2 duly attested by Ms.Shilpa Chowdhary, RM of the Bank. 6. THE LP PROPERTIES TRUST The existence of this trust was revealed in the assessee's written submissions to the department during the course of assessment proceedings on 18.03.2016 for the first time. According to a letter purportedly addressed by Confiance Limited to the assessee Shri. Yashovardhan Birla, this trust was set up on 28.03.2014 and the "Settlor" is mentioned as The Banyan Trust No further details as to the incorporation documents, corpus fund, terms and conditions of the trust, trustees etc. are furnished. 8.5 It is noted that detailed inquiries have been conducted and information has been gathered from offshore tax jurisdictions to ascertain the source of funds and investment of the front entities and to establish the beneficial owners / beneficiaries of accounts owned by these entitles. The details of the front entities, bank accounts and assets held by them and the beneficial owner / beneficiary as per the records of the banks have been outlined by the AO while dealing with the inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rroborated by the Foundation documents and declarations filed before the bank. Thereafter, the service providers were changed to CCS Group / Confiance Group and Manwell Investment Properties Ltd, BV1, one of the fiduciaries of the new service provider held the shares from 08.10.2012 as nominee of Mokopane Ltd, another front company in which the assessee is the beneficial owner through the new trust structure brought in place namely The Banyan Trust (Guernsey), On 12.11.2013, the company Kinetic Holdings Ltd was re-domiciled to Guernsey. Regarding the details of investments and assets including properties, if any, held by Kinetic Holdings Ltd, the only information available is the financial reports for the period 01.01.2011 to 17.01.2012 which was received from the Jersey authorities. It is seen that the source of funds in the hands of Kinetic Holdings Ltd included basically the following [as per Book Value) as on 17.01.2012: (A) Share Capital USD 100.00 (B) Accumulated Profit of earlier years till 31.12. 2010 USD 111,208. 67 (C) Profit for the current year (i) Excess of expenditure over property income USD (-) 20,595.18 (ii) Gai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad invested in a company Herritor Investment Ltd under LR5 scheme of RBI from 2007 to 2011. Details of remittances made through LRS furnished by the assessee showed that a sum of USD 400,000 and GBP 89,210 has been remitted from FY.2007-0 to FY 2010-11 through his CA No. 00960200001427 with UCO Bank, Church Gate Reclamation Branch, Mumbai. Further details about Herritor Investment Ltd have not been, furnished by the assessee so far. However, from the declarations filed with the banks and the structure of holding, it emerges that Herritor Investment Ltd is also indirectly held by the aseessee as the sole beneficiary Sum of USD 635,568.54 was reported as loan from Herrltor Investments Ltd in the financial statement of Kinetic Holdings limited which is much more than the remittance claimed by to have been made by the assessee under LRS. As per the asset details furnished in the financial statements as on 17.01.2012, Kinetic Holdings Ltd has three properties, two at Singapore and one at London. Out of the two properties m Singapore, the one at No.56, Cairnhill Circle, Singapore appears to have been sold during the years since no value is assigned in the balance sheet. It is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances by Shri Bharat Ankaraju, the Advisor of the assessee were obtained by the banks and are part of the documents received by the Department from the off-shore tax authorities. Letter of HSBC to IFG Trust (Jersey) Ltd dated 07.03.2011, enclosing therewith the duly attested copy of passport of the assessee not oniy brings out the fact that Shri Yashovardhan Birla is the beneficial owner of Kinetic Limited but also proves his long standing banking relationship with HSBC. Kinetic Holdings Limited was found to be having the following bank accounts. The documentary evidences establishing the identity of the assessee as the sole beneficial owner of the assets held in these accounts and the transactions found entered therein are discussed in detail by the AO in his order and are summarized below for the sake of brevity. i. KINETIC A/C NO. 0835-1367551-0 WTH CREDIT SUISSE BANK, ZURICH Though the account was in existence since 0701.2008, information of bank account statement and deposits for the period 01.04.2011 to 11.01.2012 only has been furnished by Credit Suisse Bank, Zurich citing treaty provisions. No details in respect of earlier years have bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on various dates. It is also seen that vide letter dated 19.06.2012 addressed to Credit Suisse, Singapore, the account was requested to be closed and after converting the balance into pound sterling, the balance was directed to be transferred to the account of UK based lawyers Brian Harris & Co, a/c.no.32257120 with C Hoars & Co, London, one of the leading private banker of UK. The account has been confirmed as closed on 28.06.2012. (iii) KINETIC - ACCOUNT NO.91403800 WITH BARCLAYS BANK, SINGAPORE Account No.91403800 with Barclays Bank, Singapore in the name of Kinetic Holdings Limited v/as opened on 17.04.2013 with Confiance Limited as the Service Provider. MsVay Osborn, an employee of Confiance Ltd was listed as the contact person and one of the authorized signatories in the bank documents. Manwell Investments Properties Limited is shown as the shareholder and the Beneficial Owner is recorded as a Trust, registered on 04.05.2011 in Panama bearing no.43377 which was reportedly set up by The Bird International Foundation. This is one of the accounts which was directly handled by Ms. Nita Shivdasani in her capacity as a director of Barclays Bank, Singapor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng copies of passport of the assesses and the holding structure as furnished by the authored signatories to the banks in respect of the accounts in the name of Alea Management Limited etc., clearly established the identity of the beneficial ownership of the assets/investments held therein beyond doubt. The following bank accounts were found to exist In the name of Alea Management Limited whtch have been discussed by the AO elaborately and are summarized below: i. ALEA - ACCOUNT No. 0835-722484-9 WITH CREDIT SUISSE BANK, ZURICH Though this account was opened way back on 07.08.2007, the details of transactions / assets for the period from 2007 to 2011 have not been furnished by the Bank citing treaty restrictions. As a result, the details for a very small period of about 4 months alone have been shared through the treaty arrangements. However, as this limited period data would show, substantial sums have been routed through this account and safe proceeds of securities have also been found credited in large sums. The transactions also show that there are fund transfers from the account of Alea Management Ltd to other front entities of the assessee l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garding Alea Management Ltds account, duly confirmed by the Relationship Manager (RW) of the Bank, gives a detailed account of the interactions that the bank officers / relationship managers had with the assessee, Shti Vashovardhan Birla in person at his office in Nariman Point, Mumbai and his intention to shift to HSBC. (iii) Account No. 1510428 with Credit Suisse, Geneva It is in the name of Alea Management Ltd was opened on 11.01.2011 in which, the Beneficial Owner as pet Form A is declared as Shri Yashovardhan Birla. Account is under this client code. (iv) A/c. 13518394 - ALEAA summary of this account has been provided by the AO at Table 15 (page 116) of his order (v) ALEA - OTHER ACCOUNTS From the information received from offshore banks so far, it is seen that the sub accounts of Alea Management Ltd indifferent currencies have substantial transactions therein, some of which included inter-account transfer to other entitles like Mokopane Ltd also. The AO reproduced these transactions at Table- 17 on page 117 of his order. Alea Management Ltd has an account with Barclays Bank, Singapore in which the Beneficial Owner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Suisse, Zurich in the name of Mokopane Ltd, including dealing in securities. (ii) MOKOPANE-A/C No. 125042-01-780 WITH CREDIT SUISSE, SINGAPORE The account No. 125042-01-780 was opened on 16.08.2011. Regarding the Beneficial Ownership, there are five correspondences from the authorized signatories over a period. All of them invariably declare that the assessee Shri Vashovardhan Birla is the sole beneficial owner of the asset held under account No. 125042-01-780 with Credit Suisse in the name of Mokopane Ltd. The first letter dated 19.08.2011 mentions The Banyan Trust as the Beneficiary, The second letter dated 23.08.2011 mentions that the beneficiary of The Banyan Trust is the assesses, Shri Yashovardhan Birla. The third letter dated 23.08.2011 mentions the beneficiary of The Bird International Foundation as the assessee, Shri Yashovardhan Birla and his family The fourth letter dated 20.04.2012 from Confiance Ltd first states that the Asset Contributor of The Banyan Trust is Mokopane Ltd. The fifth Letter dated 24.09.2012 from Confiance Ltd further reveals that the assessee is not only the sole beneficial owner of the assets but is also the contributor of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in such a way to present it as a case of a private trust, in fact, the entire structure starting from The Bird International Foundation to The Banyan Trust and then to the layering entitles was only a camouflage to cover the trail of funds and the real owner of such assets. However, the letters of Confiance Ltd above establishes beyond doubt that the assessce. Shri Vaahovardhan Birla himself was the asset contributor through this carefully woven holding structure. 4. SORWOOD DEVELOPMENT SA Sorwood Development SA was incorporated on 25.05.1998 as an International Business Company In the British Virgin Islands. Sorwood Development 5.A opened an account on 15.11.2001 with Credit Suisse Bank, Zurich, bearing the business relationship number 0835-40639-1, which has since been dosed on 25.07.2012. As per the documents filed with the Bank, the assessee Shri Yashovardhan Birfa is mentioned as the Legal Owner of the assets held under this business relationship in Form A, which is a mandatory document as per Article 3 under VSB Agreement on the Swiss bank's code of conduct with regard to the exercise of due diligence, referred to as CDB. This declarat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k (UK) Ltd, London. 5. ANRID LLC, DELAWARE, USA Anrid LLC is a limited liability company formed under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act on 01.10.2007. Anrid LLC was having an account with Credit Suisse, Zurich bearing relationship number 0835-1494489-2. As per Form A filed under Article 3 of CBD by the company, Shri Yashovardhan Birla is the sole beneficial owner of the assets held under this account. As per the KYC document, the Origin of assets deposited is mentioned as from "savings accumulated over the last couple of years" and the expected movement in the account is stated to be part of export revenues. All assets in the account of Anrid were transferred to Alea Management Limited - account no. 13518394 with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) 5A, Geneva on 29.08.2011 at the request of Credit Suisse Trust AG. 6 MANWELL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LIMITED Manwell Investment Properties Limited was incorporated as a limited liability company on 26.07.2012 under the BVJ Business Companies Art, 2004 and registered at no. 1725776 with maximum authorised shares of 50,000 with par value of USD 1 each. The first Registered Agent is CCS Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other front entities like Alea Management Ltd, Kinetic Holdings Ltd, Sorwood Development SA and Mokopane Ltd, to list a few. Substantial sums have been transferred from one entity to the other, like in the case of Kinetic Holdings Ltd, loan has been given by Herritor investments Ltd which is much more than the investment admittedly made by the assessee. As per client notes in the case of Alea Management Ltd, it is clearly stated that Heiritor Investment Ltd has the same Beneficial Owner as the former and that sums have been transferred to the latter. As on date, no further information has been received in connection with this entity from the offshore banks. 8. MAGENTA PROPERTIES INVESTMENTS LTD Magenta Properties Investments Ltd is mentioned in the Structure of Holding chart filed by the various offshore entities with the banks wherein it is mentioned as a UAE company incorporated on 10,03.2013 bearing Registration No.157735. This entity was referred to him by Shri Brijesh Thakkar, also as the one through which the assesses was looking to invest In a property, for which he was paid consultation fee. 9. MAGENTA PROPERTIES LTD The mention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pani, was holding the shares of Kinetic Holdings ltd and that Avit Investments Ltd was held by Kinetic Holdings Ltd. However, except this admission of investment in Avit Investments Ltd, no information or evidence has been furnished. The submission of undisclosed offshore investment in PT South Asia Viscose through Credit Suisse AG in the name of Avit Investments Ltd made by Shri G.L Lath is corroborated by assessee's own admission. However, the AO notes that the very existence of such a discretionary trust extent of corpus therein, identity of the settlor, terms and conditions therein nave not been substantiated tin date. The claim of flow of funds from such a trust is also not supported with any documents. 14. EPICORP SOFTWARE INC In the client notes, a draft email in connection with the buy back offer involving the shares of a company Epicorp Software Inc is referred to. Though no further details are available so far, information on public domain shows that the company has since been shifted to the same address as that of Anrid LLC at Delaware, which prima facie reveals the proximate connection of this entity to the assessee and his offshore entities. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entities like B/O. SUNMOON, HOMES, Powerdesk International, etc. is also noticed for which no further details are available in this office. 8.6 While dealing with the above bank accounts, the AO has noted that a beneficial owner Is recognized as the ultimate owner of the deposited assets under Swiss Law and understanding of the Banks. The AO has noted that the menaing of "Beneficial Owner" is also explained in the declaration filed with the banks as "the natural person who ultimately owns (directly /indirectly) and / or controls the account holder and or the person on whose behalf the transaction is being conducted. It also refers to those persons who exercise ultimate control over a legal person and / Of arrangement." It further clarifies that "the beneficial owner does not necessarily have to be granted power of attorney or signatory authority for the bonking relationship contemplated thereunder". 8.7 The examination of close aides handling sensitive affairs of the assessee led to clear admission by these employees that they had managed the assets of these foreign entities at the behest of the assessee. One of the persons having extensive knowledge is Shri G L L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... x. He confirmed and corroborated! the statement given by Ms Nita Shivdasani. In a subsequent statement, he submitted that he had been pressurized by the assesses to retract his earlier statement. He accepted that varacity of his earlier statement. xi. He accepted that he had met Mr Andrews, London [whose phone number was also available in the assessee's mobile) and that he assisted in closing assessee's bank accounts in HSBC and transfer of such funds to other accounts. 8.8 The other close aide who has, through documents seized from her computer, email correspondence and admission in the statements, provided irrefutable proof that it was the assessee who was in actual control of all the funds being managed in these accounts was Ms Nita Shivdasani. Ms Shivdasani was earlier an employee with Barclays Bank, Singapore and had assisted the assessee in opening some of the offshore accounts of the assesses while she was with the Sank. Later, she joined the team of the assesses managing his wealth. It has come out of the documents found with her and her statement recorded during search / post search/ assessment inquiries that: i. She was in touch w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer has been elaborately discussed above and he noted that there were sufficient assets outside the country of which the assessee has been found to be a beneficial owner. Thereafter he referred to the scope of total undisclosed income and assets as per section 4 of the Act. Referring to the above he held that in the above definition of scope, only the determination of income element has been linked with the return of income filed by the assessee in proceedings going on under Income Tax Act. That it has no reference to the issue of notice u/s 10(1) of the Act for which mere presence of sufficient information with the AO under BMIT Act is sufficient. That further, as clause (c) above would indicate, the 'value of undisclosed assets' is not linked with the return of income, the implication being that if the such information about such assets comes to the knowledge of the AO, he is free to issue notice under the BMIT Act and such notice would not have a relation with the return under Income Tax Act. That the present proceedings are predominantly related to existence of assets for which the appellant has been found to be a beneficial owner. That as such, no fetters are plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....afe Deposit Vaults (P.) Ltd. [2006] 68 SCL 52 (Bom) to claim that where no evidence is adduced regarding foreign law, the presumption is that it is the same as Indian Law on the point in consideration. He noted that the assessee has now proceeded to argue his case as if the Trust was framed under the Indian Trust Laws. He observed that the assessee has elaborately submitted the rights and duties of the Settlor with reference to appointment of trustees and control over assets. That it is claimed that migration of trust assets does not alter the irrevocable nature of the trust settlement, rather the discretion merely becomes vested with new or additional trustees. That as per the assessee, the trust assets at AT 351 (above trust) are migrated by trustees to Nibola Trust (Liechtenstein) in 1998 with Credit Suise Limited as Trustee, in 2010 the trust assets are migrated to Bird International Foundation (Panama) with HSBC as trustee, in 2011, the trust assets are migrated to Banyan Trust (Guernsey) with Confiance Limited as trustees. It is claimed that such migration is not distribution. 19. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the trust deed enclosed by the assessee has not been filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rib.). He elaborately referred from the said decisions running into several pages. He noted that in the above order, the ITAT has given primacy to the documents with the bank which mention the assessee as 'beneficial owner' rather than the contents of the various structures cited by the assessee. That in the above decision, the assessee's conduct in declining to sign a consent waiver was observed adversely by the ITAT. He referred extensively to the ITAT order. Thereafter, he held that in the present case, the assessee has tried to mislead the department in a planned way. That each and every bank having bank accounts identified by the A.O. has confirmed that the assessee is the 'beneficial owner/contributor of assets' of these accounts. He further referred that sufficient evidence has been unearthed during search action indicating that while the assessee has given a consent waiver. The result has been lack of co-operation from HSBC, Geneva Bank. That evidence has also come in the form of Ms. Nina Shivdasani that she was directed to contact persons outside the country in order to erase certain evidences of ownership of assets. Thus, he held that in view of the above decision, the on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the assessee to be beneficial owner of such bank accounts and funds therein. He further held that without prejudice with this, the assessee has failed to produce any document to support the source of funds in the various bank accounts identified by the A.O. and reproduced in his order. That the assessee's claim was also not accepted because the assessee was a discretionary beneficiary in the Bird International Foundation and Banyan Trust, the schedule of Bird International Foundation reproduced by the A.O. at page 58 of his order shows only Yashovardhan Birla and his descendants as beneficiaries. These are contemporaneous documents shared by the Competent Authorities of these countries. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) held that the only evidence filed by the assessee in support of his contention of his being a discretionary benefit is an unauthenticated copy of a purported declaration of trust by one Albany Trustee Company Limited regarding the corpus fund of the impugned trust. That the corpus of funds in this declaration is hundred shares of USD 1 each of Kinetic Holding Ltd. to competent authorities indicates that the shares of Kinetic Holding Ltd. continued to be in the name of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n such circumstances, the action of the A.O. in issuig notice u/s.10(1) of the Act cannot be faulted. 24. Thereafter, he held that BMIT Act mandates assessment of undisclosed income/assets in the hands of beneficial owners/beneficiaries irrespective of ownership of paper. Referring to this, he held that in light of the discussion held earlier, the documents filed by the assessee at Annexure I, II, IV and V do not held the assessee. He again referred to the assessee's ground that the A.O. could not have issued a notice u/s.10(1) for the A.Y. 2016-17 as the assessee ceased to have an interest in the discretionary trust with effect from 15.07.2014. He held that similar issue has been raised by the assessee at ground no.6 as well. Referring to the earlier observation, he rejected this ground also. He held that while the issuing notice u/s.10(1), the A.O. has pointed out various entities and their bank account as well as documents evidencing that he was a beneficial owner of such accounts. That the assessee cannot rebut all these documents merely through these two letters which are unsupported by any document. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the A.O.'s summary of the informati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the order has been filed before me but has not been admitted as an evidence), it is claimed that the analysis and conclusion of the ITSC currently remain sub judice in a pending writ petition before Hon'ble Bombay High Court and that if the appellant were to succeed in the challenge, there is a clear prospect of a conclusive settlement being achieved in relation to the tax assessment and section 2451 will operate to bar reopening under any law including EMIT Act. 27. That the assessee has also contended that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2, Mumbai was aware of all the assets under discussion as clear from his letter dated 28.8.2017 addressed to the Secretary, Settlement Commission. Once he was aware of these assets under the Income Tax Proceedings; a separate notice u/s 10(1) of the EMIT Act could not have been issued. 28. That the submission made by the assessee has been examined. That there appears no provision in the BM Act which prohibits initiation or continuance of proceedings under the BM Act if assessment proceedings in other years are continuing under Income Tax Act. Hence, the proceedings continuing under the I T Act cannot operate as a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under BMIT Act is not found acceptable. The grounds of appeal no. 4 to 9 raised by the assessee in his appeal in this regard are not found tenable and are dismissed. In light of the various facts which have already noted above, it is held under section 15(l)(b) rws 17 of the BMIT Act that the assessee is liable to be assessed under the Act and the notice under section 10(1) of the Act has been validly issued by the A.O. 32. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 33. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Both the parties have been extensively heard. They made respective rejoinders as well. 34. Final summary of assessee's submissions are summarized as under: 1. The present appeal, instituted under section 18 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA), challenges the jurisdictional order dated 26 April 2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)- Range 51, Mumbai under section 15(1)(6) of BMA (Impugned Order). MATERIAL FACTS 2. In September 1989, an irrevocable discretionary trust came to be settled under the laws of Guernsey, by non -resident maternal uncl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct for: (i) eighty years from the date of the declaration of trust; (ii) death of the last survivor of the descendants of King George the Fifth of England; or, (iii) such earlier date as the trustees may in writing declare to be the date of expiration. The last of the three eventualities mandates a trigger either simultaneously with or following 'distribution', except where a migration of trust* assets occurs in consonance with powers reserved to the trustees under clause 8(3) and 8(4) of the Instrument of Trust. 8. (Late) Shri Pratap Malpani died on 14 February 1990, simultaneously (in an airplane crash) with his wife Smt. Vibha Malpani, Shri Ashokvardhan Birla - father of the Appellant, Smt. Sunanda Birla- mother of the Appellant and Smt. Sujata Mehta- sister *of the Appellant. COMPLIANCE WITH 2012 AMENDMENTS TO INCOME-TAX ACT RE: FOREIGN ASSETS & LATER REVISIONS OF SCHEDULE FA 9. In AY 2012-13, a fifth proviso to s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) was introduced, with corollary modification to the prescribed form for returns of income,*introducing Schedule FA for declaration of 'foreign assets' and foreign income. 10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....298-2299). CESSATION RE: MEMBER OF CLASS OF BENEFICIARIES OF TRUST 13. Upon the Appellant ceasing to be a member of the class of beneficiaries of the Trust in July 2014 (PB Vol.5 @ Page 2306), the obligation of the Appellant to declare status in relation to the Trust came to an end. In the return filed by the Appellant for AY 2015-16, it was specifically declared that Appellant was beneficiary of "The Banyan Trust & All Companies/ Trust/ Entities, thereunder (Discretionary Trust) Upto 14.07.2014." Extract of the Appellant's Schedule FA for AY 2015-16 is at PB Vol.5, Pages 2300-2302. 14. In AY 2016-17, the Appellant's Schedule FA continued to declare foreign bank accounts and an immovable property purchased through LRS in Oman. Extract of Appellant's Schedule FA for AY 2016-17 is at PB Vol.1 @ Pages 523-537. FOREIGN ASSETS ACQUIRED FROM INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAX EVASION, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF BMA 15. On 26 May 2015, the BMA was enacted, rendering exigible to declaration under s.59 BMA undisclosed foreign assets and/or income "acquired from income chargeabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 The fundamental jurisdictional pre-requisite for initiating proceedings under BMA is *that the foreign asset or income shall have been acquired from income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 which has escaped assessment for reasons attributable inter alia to tax evasion. Accordingly, it is imperative for the AO to establish prima facie, on the basis of cogent 'information', that such person against whom proceedings are initiated under BMA has contributed to that foreign asset from out of income that was chargeable to tax in India but which has escaped assessment for reasons of tax evasion, and accordingly that such person is either the 'beneficial owner' or 'beneficiary' of such asset or income on account of a clear nexus * with such asset or income, in order to be rendered amenable to BMA. FAQ #31 in the binding CBDT Circular No.13 of 2015 dated 6 July 2015 stipulates, in express terms, that contribution/ consideration is key to establish 'beneficial ownership': "THERE MAY BE A CASE WHERE A PERSON IS LISTED AS A BENEFICIARY IN A FOREIGN ASSET, HOWEVER, IF HE HAS PROVIDED CONSIDERATION. FOR THE ASSET, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, HE WILL B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the recipient of income/distribution from the Trust, duly certified by the trustees inter alia in the 'source of trust wealth' certification issued by the *trustees in June 2017, remined undisputed by the Revenue m the WT Act proceedings of the Appellant. The fact that there has been no distribution by the Trust(s) to the Appellant is independently supported by certificates of both the original and the existing trustees and remains uncontroverted by the Revenue. Albany's director- Michael Collins, on 7 March 2016 (refer PB Vol.1, Pg. 54), independently corroborated by certificate of Confiance Limited Guernsey dated 24 March* 2016 (refer PB Vol.1, Pg: 72-74), conclusively establishes that *no 'distribution' has been made directly to the Appellant. 19.3 Absence of 'jurisdictional fact' under BMA, in circumstances where it was not in dispute that the Appellant was* neither shareholder nor director of any corporate vehicle(s) within the Trust structure. On the settled legal principle that a 'company is distinct from its shareholders', as held in Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v. CWT [1972] 86 ITR 133 (SC), there is no statutory sanction under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted,*the ownership over the property is split into two: (i) the legal ownership which is acquired by and rests with the trustee; and (ii) the beneficial ownership which is; acquired by the beneficiary virtue of transfer under the trust and which is enjoyed by him. It is very important and curious instance of dual ownership which allows the separation of power of management and the rights of enjoyment. The former is owned by the trustee and is a matter of form and nominal and the latter is owned by the beneficiary and is a matter of substance and reality. It is by fiction of law that the trustee is treated as the full owner of the property against third person but as between the trustee and beneficiaries, the property belong to the latter and not to the former. The trust ownership and beneficial ownership are separate and independent of each other in their destination and disposition both. Either of the two may be transferred or encumbered without affecting *the other in any way." 19.7 Limitations of corporate trustees, in matters of regulatory compliances, particular the fact that trustees/ fiduciaries are ineligible to declare themselves as 'beneficial owners'. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings of the Appellant. 19.12 Distinct recognition by the CBDT of a "variance", between 'beneficial ownership' under BMA from that utid.er Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, clarified in FAQ #31 by CBDT Circular No.13 of 2015 dated 6 July 2015, in recognition of the fact that the remit of anti-money laundering compliances is the aim of verifying and validating no money laundering antecedents. 19.13 Principal Commissioner of income Tax (Central)- 2, after taking into consideration the certificate as to 'source of trust wealth' dated 27 June 2017 issued by Confiance Limited (PB Vol.5 @ Page 2303-2307), conceding in letter of 28 August 2017 that "As to the submission of the assessee that formation of Avit Investment Ltd/ Kinetic Holdings Ltd. and related entities/ structures by Pratap Malpani, took place in the early and mid-1980's is concerned, the same is not disputed at present .." (PB Vol.1 @ Page 308-311); 19.14 Assertion of the Revenue in the IT Act and WT Act proceedings regarding exercise of power of appointment and removal of trustees rendering the Appellant is the brainchild of and in control of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....beneficiary of the Trust (PB Vol.5, pg. 2011, para 24). 23.4 the Revenue cannot collapse the offshore trust structure i.e., corporate veil cannot be lifted, since offshore 1:ntities are independent .entities taxable in their respective jurisdictions (PB. Vol 5, pg. 2016, para 32). 23.5 the. Appellant was not the 'substantial owner' of assets settled upon Trust held through Kinetic Holdings Ltd'. (PB Vol.5, pg. 2011, para 25) 23.6 bank accounts in foreign jurisdictions pertaining to offshore entities could not be treated as bank accounts of Appellant even though for anti-money laundering purpose the Appellant had been declared 'beneficial owner' (PB Vol.5, pg. 2019, para 37). 23.7 the case of the Revenue is no.t that the investments were moved from India by the settlor any beneficiaries ... It is a fact on record that there are investments, which were made by the assessee or the investments were moved from India (PB Vol5, pg. 2015, para 30). DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF APPEAL ON JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE 24. Arising from the Commissioner (Appeals) declining ability to* schedule a hearing on the section 15(1)(6) BMA appeal cit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....* the Appellant is the sole beneficiary/beneficial owner and contributor of the assets / investments being held in the name of offshore Trusts/ entities (para 9.2.16), 27.5 the Appellant had put into place and managed an intricate web of entities hidden behind the corporate veil i.e., a structure for his exclusive benefit, thereby being the ultimate sole beneficiary:- this was language lifted by the .Commissioner (Appeals) directly from the assessment order para 5.14.25 (para 9..2.6)*, 27.6 the Appellant is the real owner of assets / investments / bank balances based on Form A declarations of Beneficial Owner under Swiss Penal Code- this was language lifted by the Commissioner (Appeals) directly from the assessment order para 5.16.8 (para 8.5 (2)(i)* @ Pg.62, 8.5(3)(ii) @ Pg.65, 9.3.4(x)), 27.7 the Appellant had made efforts to conceal facts through instructing HSBC, Geneva not to part with details about his accounts to* the Indian Authorities, revoking a Consent Waive letter issued by the Appellant to HSBC, Geneva (para 9.2.13), 27.8 the Appellant did not avail the benefit of one-time compliance 'Window by filing a declaration *under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in fact was issued subsequent to the ITAT WT order, betraying arbitrariness, caprice and indiscipline, which is not liable to be treated lightly. PRESENT APPEAL INSTITUTED *ON JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION 30. The present appeal No. 1/BMA/2021 was instituted on 17 May 2021. 31. Following the issuance of notice of hearing by the AO on 27 May 2021 in relation to the 'stay' application of the Appellant in relation to the assessment order, the Appellant instituted Stay Application No. 61/Mum/2021 on 28 May 2021, which came to be granted at a hearing held on 4 June 2021. GRANT OF STAY BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL 32. Despite grant of an order of 'stay' by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 4 June 2021, the AO declined to take cognisance of the order made on 4 June 2021. Heightened belligerence on the part of the Revenue was apparent from the Commissioner (Appeals) failing to take into consideration this Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 24 December 2020 in the Appellant's WT proceedings despite its direct bearing on issues in contention in the BMA proceedings with *identical facts having been adjudicated upon therein, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement, not at the conclusion of the enquiry." 33.4 Smt Shrisht Dhawan v Shaw Bros. [1992] 1 SCC 534, wherein it was held "What, then, is an error in respect of jurisdictional fact? A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends assumption or refusal to assume jurisdiction by a Court, tribunal or an authority. In Black's Legal Dictionary it is explained as a fact which must exist before a court can properly assume jurisdiction of a particular case. Mistake of fact in relation to jurisdiction is an error of jurisdictional fact. No statutory authority or tribunal can assume jurisdiction in respect of subject matter which the statute does not confer on it and if by deciding erroneously the fact on which jurisdiction depends the court or tribunal exercises the jurisdiction then the order is vitiated. Error of jurisdictional fact renders the order ultra vires and bad. [Wade Administrative Law]" 33.5 Arun Kumar v Union of India [2007] 1 SCC 732, wherein it was held ''A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a court, Tribunal or an authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact-finding authority is well settled, in Ganapathy & Co. v. CIT (2016) 11 SCC 274. No new information or documentation has come to the hands of the Revenue between 24 December 2020 *and the hearings that concluded in August 2021 in the BMA proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal, and none has been produced/confronted to the Appellant by the Revenue. In the circumstances, conclusive and binding findings of fact, rendered by the final fact-finding authority, i.e. this Hon'ble Tribunal, on the basis of distinct concessions made by the Revenue, in the course of WT Act proceedings, must preclude the Revenue *from re-inventing or re-engineering matters or engaging in surmise or conjecture for purposes of BMA proceedings.. 36. Thus, whe.re the progenitor Instrument of Trust is an undisputed irrevocable discretionary trust, not disputed by the R venue in the WT Act proceedings, there is no scope to allege that its validity can be put into contention in BMA proceedings. APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF APPROBATE AND REPROBATE 37. Principles of approbate and reprobate apply with full force and effect. The salutary observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to work in fair and transparent manner." DOCTRINE OF FAIR PLAY IN ADJUDICATION. 38.. The doctrine of fair play in adjudication also proscribes the Revenue from acting arbitrarily, * inconsistently and capriciously. In K.L: Tripathi v. State Bank of India (1984) 1 SCC 43., it was held "The basic concept is fair play in action administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial. The concept of fair play in action must depend upon the particular lis, if there be any, between the parties. "Similarly, in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (1967) 2 SCR 625 it was held "An order by the State to the Prejudice of a person in derogation of his vested rights may be made only in accordance with the basis rules of justice and fairplay." STATUTORY FRAMEWORK OF BMA 39. The framework .of s.2(11) BMA defines an "undisclosed asset located outside India" to be an asset located outside India held either directly in the assessee's own name, or in respect of which the assessee is a beneficial owner. 40. An assessee is, upon receipt of a s.10* BMA -notice, based on information available to the Assessing Officer (AO), bound to provide an explanation to the AO. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t not defined and defined in the Income-tax Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act", warrant that regard must be had to definitions of 'beneficial owner' and/or 'beneficiary' available in the IT Act, i.e., s.139(1) Explanations 4 & 5. 50. In fact, as set forth above, the fifth proviso to s.139(1) IT Act, introduced with effect from 1 April 2012, simultaneously with revising the form for 'return of income' under s.139 IT Act to include Schedule FA, imposes a statutory obligation to file a return of income by a person who holds any asset (including any financial interest in any entity) located outside India as a 'beneficiary owner' and/or 'beneficiary. ' Introduction of Schedule FA was plainly the precursor to the introduction of BMA, including a declaratory regime in s.59 BMA. 51. Examining thus, the definition *of a 'beneficial owner', within the meaning of s.139(1) Expln.4 IT Act: "an individual who has provided, directly or indirectly, consideration for the asset for the immediate or future benefit, directly or indirectly, of any other person", applied to the fact matrix, and examined particu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;beneficial ownership' *or 'beneficiary' in the BMA cannot take the case of the Revenue any further, in circumstances where BMA is materially linked with disclosures under s.139(1) IT Act and imports definitions of IT Act via s.2(15) BM.A. 57. The case asserted by the Revenue that 'beneficial ownership' and/or 'beneficiary' definitions in Explanation 4 & 5 of s.139(1) have no application to BMA is inconsistent with CBDT FAQ no. 31* in the binding CBDT Circular No.13 of 2015 dated 6 July 2015 which makes express reference to Explanation 4 and 5 of section 139 of the IT Act, in relation to matters of 'beneficial ownership' and 'beneficiary' in relation to foreign asset and income, and reproduces verbatim those definitions stating these apply ''for the purpose of the Act", i.e. BMA, leaving no scope for Revenue to argue to the contrary. 58. Absent any statutorily drawn distinction or deeming fiction to demarcate the concept of 'beneficial ownership' and/or 'beneficiary' under these three statutes, i.e. IT Act, WT Act and BMA, it is reasonable for the definitions under the IT Act contained in Explanation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n provided, or paid by, another person" and/or where "the property is held for the* immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect*, of the person who has provided the consideration" and/or transactions in fictitious names. Emphasis must be had to the use of 'consideration provided or paid', pointing ultimately to 'source' or 'contribution', since that is the determinant for benami property, with the statute ultimately premised on confiscation of benami property. Significantly, Revenue has not advocated, in the present case, that the definition of 'beneficial ownership' under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 has any bearing on issues arising under BMA. 63. Under PMLA, a 'beneficial owner' is defined in s.2(1)(fa) to mean "an individual who ultimately owns or controls a client of a reporting entity or the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted and includes a person who exercises ultimate effective control over a juridical person'." While this statute ai1ns to provide legal redress in relation to money laundering, given the economic threat it imposes upon the financial systems of countries....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in ACIT v. Shri Jatinder* Mehra (order dated* 7 July 2021 in BMA No. 01/Del/2020), relying inter alia upon the ruling of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter of Kamal Galassni v. ACIT (order dated 10 September 2020 in ITA Nos.138-142/Mum/2019), has examined the scope and framework under BMA of 'beneficial owner"'. With respect, the Appellant submits that on the issue of 'beneficial ownership' and 'beneficiary', the definitions in IT Act, s.139(1), Explanations 4 &*5, must determine scope for the Appellant to be treated as beneficial owner or beneficiary for purposes of BMA: AMBIT OF FORM A UNDER SWISS ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING LAWS 66. The SCN disregards* the binding CBDT circular No. 13 of 2015 dated 6 July 2015 (@ CBDT Circulars Tab 5), which in FAQ 31, clarifies that PMLA declarations - bound to be treated as analogous .to Swiss anti-money* laundering declarations - cannot be reckoned for determining 'beneficial ownership' or 'beneficiary'. In effect, therefore, it was not available to the AO to premise the SCN in reliance upon Form A. In light of the well-settled posi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. Independently, the Appellant has relied upon the apostilled foreign law expert opinion of renowned Swiss law firm Reichlin Hess dated 11 January 2016 (PB Vol.1, Pg. 37 to 53)., which also certifies that Swiss AML compliances have no bearing on matters of taxation. The Revenue having hitherto had the benefit of this foreign law expert opinion in both . the IT Act and in the WT *Act proceedings, has elected not to contest its correctness, nor led any evidence to the contrary, thus rendering it liable to be treated as unassailable. As a corollary, it must follow that the Revenue concedes that AML compliance s are not determinative of matters of taxation. 73. The CBDT clarification, in this regard, vide Circular No.13 of 2015 dated 6 July 2015, in FAQ No. 31 specifically puts it beyond the realm of any doubt that the determination of "beneficial owner" would be "at variance with the- defemination of beneficial ownership provided under Rule 9(3) of the PMLA (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005". 74. Thus, it is apparent that 'beneficial owner' for purposes of PMLA and for BMA are "at variance", and therefore, there is no scope to import the position of a ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llow that one or more beneficiaries of a discretionary trust may be liable to be declared as 'beneficial owner' for R.9(3) compliance purposes. 76. In matters of trust structures, a trustee is. proscribed from claiming beneficial ownership of assets comprising the trust and must therefore put forth the name *of one or more beneficiaries, depending on regulatory stipulations, including * forms, protocols,* legal obligations, etc. liable to be discharged by trustees. The mere act of corporate trustees ensuring due compliances in relation to trusts, through causing any one or more of several beneficiaries to make declaration(s) for anti-money laundering purposes, whether under PMLA or the analogous Swiss anti-money 1ai:indering framework, is incapable of causing vestiture upon such beneficiary(ies) of the t:mst assets within a discretionary trust structure. A regulatory declaration caused by trustees; who are ineligible to declare themselves as .. beneficiaries, cannot alter the entitlements of one or more beneficiaries under an instrument of trust, or have the legal effect of* causing one or more beneficiaries to surrender or relin9uish or waive distribution by discr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortunity to the Appellant to rebut material. The Impugned Order has also transgressed the legally permissible realm within the framework of a 'jurisdictional' adjudication, through overlooking that this Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 24 December 2020 constituted relevant evidence in favour of the Appellant, and was bound to be considered in the jurisdictional Adjudication, and also *importing the findings in the assessment order; in effect virtually rendering meaningless the 'jurisdictional' determination contemplated by s.15(1)(6) BMA. 82. It was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) to overcome. this Hon'ble Tribunal's *order, through a fleeting observation that: "In light of clear distinction between the two laws, it is held that the above decision cannot be treated as binding precedent, not even as a normal precedent. It is liable to be treated as a normal evidence produced by the assessce at the time of appellate proceedings. Since this evidence was not in existence at the time of decision taken any the AO to issue notice under section 10(1) of the BMIT Act, it cannot be admitted as fresh evidence now." (page 44, para 6.5), then i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....] 100 taxmann.com 280 (Mumbai Trib.) this Hon'ble Tribunal has held that "AO is not justified in placing the onus of proving a negative on the assessee". 89. It must follow then that the onus must lie on the Revenue to prove that a particular asset is within taring provisions - CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 3 SCC 133 --Para 17, Parimisetti Seethatamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 TIR 532 (SC) - Para 7, DCIT (IT), Mumbai v. Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya [2018] 100 taxmann.com 280 (Mumbai Trib.) - Para 17. 90. The Appellant having, in prior proceedings under the IT Act and the WT Act, relied upon the source of trust wealth certificate issued in June 2017 (PB Vol.5 @page nos.2303 to 2307) by trustees Confiance Limited, as entitled to rely upon such uncontroverted document by way of explanation, to establish that the Appellant was not a contributor to the foreign assets or income of the Trust. 91. Such a certificate issued by the trustees was bound to constitute valid evidence, and a satisfactory explanation, more so in circumstances where the Revenue had conceded in WT Act proceedings that the Appellant had not made any contribution to the Trust (from out of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use for continuity of the trustees. In case of incapacity or other exigencies, certain trustees have to be appointed or replaced. For that purpose, generally the power to appoint or re-appoint trustees lies with the settlor or vests in the declaration of trust itself. Similarly, in this case, it was given to assessee's father and mother. After their lifetime; it devolved on the assessee Merely because, it is exercised by the assessee, it does not make the trust to lose its identity. The trust still will continue with the new trustee. The properties attached to the trust will continue to be the properties of the trust. It is wrong to presume* that the properties governed by the trustee will be* considered as the properties of the individual beneficiary who exercises the appointment of trustees. In the given case, .no doubt the assessee is vested with the power to appoint or remove the trustees, does not change the status of the trust and its independent functioning". (Vol. 5, pg 2014, para 29). POWER OF APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES CANNOT LEAD TO CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT IS SOLE BENEFICIARY OF TRUST 95. In any event, the contention of Revenue that the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue were upheld, upon such vestiture of power, Ashokvardhan Birla should have become the sole beneficiary and beneficial owner of the assets and income of the Trust Thereafter, the power *was vested in Sunanda Birla. Again, applying the contention of Revenue to such a fact pattern, Sunanda Birla should have become the sole beneficiary and beneficial owner of the assets and income of the Trust. That power of appointment and removal no doubt finally vested upon the Appellant (under clause 8(1) of the Trust- @ Vol.1, page 18), but where such power had hitherto vested in Ashokvardhan Birla, it must follow that (according to the case of the Revenue) Ashokvardhan Birla became the beneficial owner of assets and income settled upon trust. Thereafter, the beneficial ownership of assets and income vested upon Sunanda Birla, .and* only finally in the Appellant, Such a theory of revolving 'beneficial ownership' depending on who is vested with power of appointment and removal, is completely inconsistent -with the provisions of the Instrument of Trust. 99. Fourthly, the Revenue has neither asserted *nor laid evidence in support of any purported exercise by the Appellant of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Trust but the Appellant who maintains and exercises full power and * absolute authority, such that the trustees are mere puppets in the hands of the Appellant, overlooks that the trustees are lawfully incorporated entities, several of which have been the trusteeship arms of leading global banks, each rendering trusteeship services which are regulated under the laws of the countries of their incorporation, each bearing. full accountability to their respective statutory and regulatory authorities, who in tum are bound, through international treaties, to render full cooperation with the Indian Competent Authority, including exchange of tax information. It is a matter of record, in the present proceedings, that the Swiss Federal Tax Administration is actively engaged with the Indian Competent Authority. The Appellant has reliably learnt that the Indian Competent Authority has actively engaged with the Guernsey Tax Office; however, no documentary evidence obtained by the Indian Competent Authority from the Guernsey Tax Office has been made available to the Appellant. The Appellant asserts that material exculpatory evidence is available to the Indian Revenue, which is not being shared w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... declaration under the IT Act, in Schedule FA for AY 2014-15 (Vol.5, pg. 2299) filed under s.139(1) IT Act; in the capacity of member of a class of beneficiaries under The Banyan Trust. In the return filed for AY 2015-16 (Vol.5, pg.2302) the Appellant specifically declared cessation of status of 'beneficiary' on and with effect from July 2014, in the following terms: "The Banyan Trust & All Companies/ Trust/ Entities, thereunder (Discretionary Trust) Upto 14.07.2014". Therefore, no scope arose to-treat the Appellant as non -compliant with s.59 BMA in AY 2016-17, when BMA came into force on and from 1 July 2015. 104. In any event, s.59 BMA had no application to the Appellant, in the facts of the case, in view of: 104.1. by virtue of the Appellant having no 'beneficial ownership' in relation to foreign assets or income of the Trust, no corollary obligation arose to make a s.59 BMA declaration. In fact, express incorporation of Chapter A"V of the IT Act (ss.159 to 181) into BMA, vide s.70 BMA, in turn preserved the statutory remit and entitlement of beneficiaries of discretionary trusts available under the IT Act, to not be treated as beneficial owner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moved from India." (Vol.5, pg. 2015, para 30). 104.5 s.59 BMA does not have retrospective application; inasmuch as it cannot reasonably be construed as imposing upon the Appellant an obligation to make a declaration under s.59 in circumstances where at no stage prior to July2014 did the Appellant, merely by virtue of being a nominated beneficiary, have anything more than a hope that the trustees will exercise discretion in favour of the Appellant. Thus, absent 'beneficial ownership' of the Appellant in relation to the assets and/or income of the Trust at any time prior to 1 July 2015, there was no scope for any such declaration under*s.59 BMA to be made by the Appellant; 104.6 furthermore, s.59 BMA imposes an obligation to make a declaration in respect of information* that is not available to the Indian Revenue, whereas the present BMA proceedings are based on information that has been long available with the Revenue, hitherto deployed in both IT and WT proceedings against the Appellant. As such, there was no scope for any declaration to be filed by the Appellant under s.59 BMA. In fact, the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Impositio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue to establish that 'source' or contribution to the Trust is traceable to the Appellant, and in the circumstances s.59 BMA can have no application to the Appellant; 104.10 in any event, the case of the Revenue that the Appellant had a statuto1y obligation under s.59 BMA to make a declaration as to (allegedly) undisclosed foreign assets and income is wholly inconsistent with the statutory framework of s.71(d) BMA, which operates as an express bar to the Appellant from resort to s.59 BMA; in light of proceedings underway under s.153C IT Act in relation to* AYs.2008 09 to 2013-14 and under s.148 IT Act for AY 1998-99 to AY 2007-08 andAY2014-15 pertaining to the subject foreign assets and income (currently in abeyance, owing to s.245C IT Act proceedings, currently pending adjudication in Writ Petition No.862 of 2018 in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court). SCHEME OF BMA- DUTY OF & ONUS UPON REVENUE 105. The AO must initiate proceedings under BMA through the issuance of a show cause notice under s.10(1) BMA, based on 'information'. 106. Upon receipt of a show cause notice issued under s.10(1) BMA, the recipient thereof may elect to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the foreign assets and income of the Trust in the hands of the Appellant. The Appellant contested the stand of the Revenue in relation to tax exigibility under the IT Ac.t in relation to foreign assets and income of the Trust in the hands of the Appellant. Therefore, the conclusion of the AO, in the jurisdictional order, that the Appellant was seeking to settle, through the ITSC, matters concerning foreign assets or income of the Trust, is perverse. 113. The Appellant was thus constrained to challenge the ITSC order dated 27 September 2017, which came to b stayed by the Hon'ble B9mbay High Court. 114. In the circumstances, no scope arises for the Revenue to rely upon the findings of the ITSC, in proceedings under BMA. In any event, since the subsequent order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in WT proceedings made on 24 December 2020 has concluded that the Appellant has.no beneficial interest or ownership whatsoever in the assets or 41come of the Trust, there can be no scope for the Revenue to continue to rely upon the ITSC order, which has been stayed.. NO SCOPE TO RELY UPON ITSC ORDER IN BMA PROCEEDINGS 115. In the case of ITO v. Dhrangadhra C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to deliberate delays in disposing of the jurisdictional challenge on frivolous grounds of lack of infrastructure created by the CBDT for disposal of a s.15(1)(b) BMA appeal followed by judicial indiscipline in declining to be bound by orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the WT proceedings and also declining to be bound by orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the BMA proceedings, aimed to defeat the . salutary statutory right and remedy prescribed in s.15(1)(b) BMA that entitles a noticee under s.10 BMA to initiate a jurisdictional challenge, rather than participate in assessment proceedings. Details of the one-year delay in disposal of the jurisdictional challenge, followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) declining to set down the s.15(1) (b) BMA appeal, warranting written representations caused to be made to the CBDT on behalf of the Appellant in order to establish requisite infrastructure for a s.15(1)(b) appeal, and finally the Article 226 Constitution of India remedy availed by the Appellant, culminating in the order dated 30 March 2021 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, are set forth in the Stay Application. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court order of 30 March 2021 is at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the information,", and has been "very co-operative,' it must follow that the draft letter was not ever issued by the Appellant, Where an advisor may have provided a draft letter to the Appellant, but such draft was not ever actioned; it constitutes a 'dumb' document, in law, and therefore has no legal validity or efficacy. In CIT v Vatika Landbase (P.) Ltd. [2016] 67 taxmann.com 372 (Delhi) - Para 40, 41, 45; and again in ITO v. Kranti Impex Pvt Ltd. (ITA* No.1229/Mum/2013, order dated 28.02.2018 - Para 6 & 7) the issue as to 'dumb documents' has been extensively considered by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 124. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Ren Tharani v. DCIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 804 (Mumbai Trib.) to allege that on similar facts, addition ill respect of foreign bank account held in the name of Tharani Family Trust, of which Ms. Renu Tharani was a beneficiary, was upheld by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The case is distinguishable; since in that case, the assessee declined to. sign the consent waiver letter to enable the Revenue to obtain* all necessary details from the foreign b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellant, and therefore, no scope arises to sustain the allegations of the Commissioner (Appeals). 127. The Commissioner (Appeals) overlooks that the Revenue has elected, in the course of IT Act proceedings, to rely upon the notarized source of trust wealth certification issued in June 2017 by Confiance Limited in coordination with a former trustee, together with lawyers representing the trustees and non-resident beneficiaries of the Trust in relation to the accumulation of trust wealth over three decades, from various investments in multiple international jurisdictions, including Indonesia, etc., and instead purports to rely upon Confiance letters dated 20 April 2012 and 24 April 2012, which lack material detail. In fact, the PCIT letter dated 28 August 2017 (Vol.1, pg.311) being based on the notarized source of trust wealth certification issued in June 2017 by Confiance Limited, prior Confiance letters which were also available with the Revenue at the time of issuance of the PCIT letter cease to be.at relevance. The Revenue has also obtained the records of formation and shareholding patterns of Kinetic Holdings Limited and Avit Investments Limited, and therefore, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant has not contributed to the Trust. 130. The* case of the Revenue that the Appellant is sole beneficiary of the Trust is not only inconsistent with the case of the Revenue that no valid Trust exists but is also contrary to the express terms of the Instrument of Trust. It appears founded on the Form-A declarations of beneficial ownership, hut plainly, that contention is flawed, since disclosures obtained by the Revenue through the Swiss Federal Tax Administration was li1nited strictly to the person in relation to Whom administrative assistance was sought, under the relevant bilateral treaty framework, and therefore any additional Form A's pertaining to other beneficiaries of the Trust were not forthcoming to the Revenue. Thus; a limit d disclosure in conformity with the tax exchange network protocols, cannot be relied upon by Revenue to claim that the Appellant is the only beneficiary. In any event, the Hon'ble Tribunal in* the wealth tax proceedings of the Appellant, aft r referring to the beneficiaries listed in* Part II of First Schedule of Instrument of Trust, has categorically rejected this contention of the Revenue as to 'sole beneficiary', holding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 7 September 1989 was duly filed in the course of the IT proceedings, under certification dated 7 March 2016 from Mr. Michael Collins (Vol.1, pg. 54), director of Albany Trustee Company Limited, the original corporate trustee appointed by the Settlor, read along with certificates dated 15 March 2016 (Vol.1, pg. 55-59) and 24 March 2016 (Vol.1, pg. 72-74) of Confiance Ltd, trustees of Banyan Trust. The Instrument of Trust was duly executed in accordance with the governing laws of Guernsey inter alia by Mr. Michael Collins, whos association with the Trust dates back thirty plus years. Mr. Michael Collins participated in a June 2017 validation of the source of trust wealth reconfirming that in 1989 the shareholding interests of Kinetic Holdings Limited. were settled upon trust vide instrument of Trust dated 7 September 1989. b) The Revenue, in the course of IT Act proceedings, asserted that the right, power and authority vested upon the Appellant, under the Instrument of Trust, for the appointment and removal of* trustees, established that the Appellant was in control of the Trust, and further was the sole beneficiary and beneficially owned its assets/income, which was thus ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stent position cannot be adopted for purposes of BMA. f) Albany Trustee Company Ltd., acting under the powers available under clause 8(3) and 8(4) of the Instrument of Trust (at Vol.1,* pg. 4 & 5), were entitled to appoint new trustees and to migrate the assets of the Trust over to the new 1:1ustees, i.e. to Nebola Trust (Liechtenstein) in 1998 with Credit Suisse Limited as trustee; in 2010, Nebola's trustees migrated the Trust assets to Bird International Foundation (Panama) with HSBC Guyerzeller Limited as 1:1ustee; and in*2011, the trust assets are migrated to The Banyan Trust, with Confiance Limited (Guernsey) as trustee. Migrations of trusts are, in fact, legally recognized as a matter of Indian law, *specifically under section 75 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882. g) Confiance Limited issued a source of trust wealth certification in June 2017, in consultation and coordination with former trustees, lawyers of the trustees and lawyers of the non-resident beneficiaries. of the Trust, which provides comprehensive details of creation and/or migration of trusts, and also the source of wealth and -investments from time* to time which was taken into consideration by the PCIT, who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent of statutorily contemplated declarations made in Schedule FA by the Appellant, in returns of income filed under s.139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which carry an underlying statement of truth, the Appellant has also produced a 'source of wealth' certification issued in June 2017 (PB Vol.5, page 2303-2307), wherein the trustees record the cessation of the Appellant as beneficiary. The certification has been produced to* the Revenue since the last four years and has not been contested by the Revenue in the IT proceedings. The position that the Appellant has ceased to be a beneficiary was also put forth in the WT Act proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal and was uncontroverted by the Revenue. The order dated 24 December 2020 records the submission of the Appellant as to cessation of the Appellant's status as beneficiary of the Trust, at paragraph 18(3) at Page 1976-1977. As such the position that was not contested* by Revenue in the IT and/or WT proceedings cannot now be contested in the BMA proceedings, on the principle of approbate and reprobate. b) The source of wealth statement dated 27 June 2017, duly issued by existing Trustees of the Banyan Trust i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Hon'ble Tribunal; and consequently the additions were upheld. In the present case, not only has the Appellant duly co-operated with all relevant authorities, but rather this. fact is also* affirmed by the relevant competent authority; i.e. the Swiss Federal Tax Administration. Thus, the case of Renu Tharani (supra) is not applicable. 4. Appellant enjoying assests of Trust a) The Appellant reiterates the unsigned letter of Sorwood, which in any event has not been shown to have been acted upon, and in any event a letter that does not bear the signature of the Appellant, is both irrelevant, and in any event liable to treatment as 'dumb documents', with no sanctity in the eyes of law. 5. COnfiance letter dated 20 and 24 April 2012 a) During the IT Act proceedings, the Appellant relied upon the 'source of trust wealth' statement, issued in June 2017 by the trustee Confiance Limited (now succeeded by Praxis Trustees Limited), which had carried out a detailed analysis of the creation of the irrevocable offshore discretionary trust by the non-resident settlor/contributor of AT-351 Trust, migration of trusts and assets from time to time, and also certified that the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tutory authorities, cannot be lightly questioned through resort to frivolous surmise and conjecture. 7. Statements by Mr. G L Lath a) The reliace placed by the Revenue on statements made by Mr. G L Lath in the course of search proceedings is impermissible ill circumstances where Mr. Lath after recording his statement on*oath, had subsequently retracted from his statement. The statement of Mr. G L Lath has no evidentiary value, and Revenue* is bound by Instruction No. F. NO. 286/2/2003 - IT (INV. II), dated 10 Match 2003 issued by CBDT and CBDT Letter No. F.No.286/98/ 2013-IT * (INV.II)], dated 18 December 2014 wherein it is made clear time and again that admissions retracted subsequently do not serve any useful purpose. Reliance is also placed on* the ruling of D.S. Agencies & Associates v. ACIT [(2017) 82 taxmann.com 252 (Mum. Trib.) - Para 24] wherein it was held that additions made on the basis of retracted statements are without a y basis and deserved to be deleted absent corroborative material on record.* b) *In any event, Mr. Lath has made statements inconsistent with documentary material available * on record with the Revenue as to beneficial ownership of Kinetic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... criterion prescribed in law for admissibility into evidence of such purported statements, it was not available .to the Commissioner (Appeals) to rely upon such purported statement and conclusions, all culled out of an impugned ITSC order, to the detriment of the Appellant. * 9. Statements of sons of Pratap Malpani a) The reliance :placed on statements of sons of Pratap * Malpani recorded during search proceedings under IT Act, wherein the .sons* of Pratap Malpani allegedly confirmed that they did not execute any renunciations of their rights under the Trust have not been produced to the Appellant* in order to enable the Appellant to cross-examine the sons who are claimed . to have issued statements. Copies of such statements were bound to have been furnished to the Appellant. instead, the Revenue claims that since.one of the sons was resident in the house of the Appellant, therefore, the Appellant was bound to be aware. of such statements. The law prescribes that a statement that is being relied upon by the Revenue must be produced to the party against whom such a statement is intended to be used, and an opportunity for cross-examination is liable to *be afforded. Having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn be appointed by existing trustees. Thus, in circumstances where trustee appointments and migrations have occurred, without exercise of the power of appointment or removal of trustees by the Appellant, in *consonance with the framework of the Instrument of Trust, it cannot be reasonably* contended by the Revenue that the vestiture of power of appointments and removal vests control of the Trust with the Appellant. e) In any event, the Revenue submission is founded on the assumption that Form A only discloses the Appellant's name as the person having beneficial ownership, which is mere conjecture at best, since the framework of tax information exchange, encapsulated in TIEAs has the limitation of delivering documents strictly pertaining to the person in respect of whom an enquiry is initiated for information request, and no further. f) The Revenue * submission also completely disregards order- of this Hon'ble Tribunal, which his already rejected this very contention in the WT proceedings, and concluded that the case of the Revenue as to the Appellant being the sole beneficiary is unsustainable (refer para 29- page 2014). g) No scope exists for treating the Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der : BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI IN THE APPEAL OF SHRI YASHOVARDHAN BIRLA (APPELLANT) BLACK MONEY APPEAL NO. 1/MUM/2021 - AY 2016-17 HEARING DATES: 3rd and 11th AUGUST, 2021 INDEX Sr no. Particulars Page no. 1 Whether the appellant has discharged the onus placed upon him to satisfactorily explain the source of the investment in the assets i.e. foreign bank accounts' where he is listed as the sole beneficial owner? / Ground Nos 3, 8, and 9] 1 2 Whether the Appellant has ceased to be beneficiary with effect from 14 July 2021 and does the Black Money Act apply retrospectively? 6 3 Does the FAQ 31 of the CBDT circular exclude the beneficial owners' definition under the PMLA Act, 2002 and restricts the definition of beneficial owner to that defined under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act? [Ground Nos - 5, 8, 11 and 12] 11 4 Whether the Tribunal order dated 24 December 2020 in Wealth Tax proceedings can be relied upon by the appellant for the proceedings under BMA? [Ground Nos - 1 and 2] 22 5 Whether the assets have already been considered in the proceedings under the Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Taxation [2020] 117 taxmann.com 804 (Mumbai - Trib.) has distinguished the judgement of the Supreme Court in HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal (supra) on the ground of non­ availability of trust deeds. Relevant extract: 47. As regards the repeated references to Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Estate of HMM Vikramsinhji of Gonda (supra), ............ These observations have no relevance in the present context. Firstly, neither there is any trust deed before us, nor the question before us pertains to taxability of income of the trust. Secondly, beyond a mention in the base note as a personneslegalesliees" (i.e. related legal persons), there is no evidence even about existence, leave aside nature, of the trust. Thirdly, the point of taxability here is benefici.al ownership of GWU Investments Ltd., a Cayman Island based company, by the assessee. Finally, even if there is a dispute about the alleged trust, the dispute is with respect oftaxability of funds found with the trust and the source thereof. Clearly, therefore, the issue adjudicated upon in the said decision has no relevance in the present context. The very reliance on the said decision pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through his imagination) that the assets of the said AT-351 trust (with no settler) were resettled in Nebola Trust in 1999, then from Nebola Trust to Bird International foundation in 201O and therefrom in the Banyan Trust Limited in 2011. An important thing to note here is that no explanation/ document has been provided which would prove as to how the assets along with subsequent accretions have migrated from AT-351 trust to Nebola Trust and therefrom to the subsequent trusts. The appellant has failed to provide any explanation i.e. live link connecting the assets of AT-351 allegedly settled by Mr Malpani and the source of funds deposited in the bank accounts wherein the appellant is listed as beneficial owner. Only answer forthcoming from the appellant is reliance on a document issued by Confiance Limited who is expert in Somersault. Confiance Limited is paid service provider of the appellant and can be removed by the appellant at will (mentioned in Trust deed- Paperbook - Volume 1 - Page 19). On 20th April 2012, Confiance Limited submitted that the Mokopane Limited was asset contributor of the Banyan Trust and 4 days later in the same month of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Liechestein. The tax laws of government of India do not apply. Hence, reference to cases which are in the Indian context are not at all applicable. Some of the salient features of trust in liechestein are already mentioned in the above said tribunal order. Hence, reference by the ld. Counsel of the assessee to apply Indian case laws to that governed by law of Liechestein is bereft of cogency." Hence, the reference to certain sections of the Indian Trusts Act is wholly incorrect because the trust is allegedly based in Guernsey and governed by the local laws. (See page 1 of the Paperbook - Volume 1 - for AT 351 Trust). However, as far as the alleged Banyan Trust is concerned since no trust deed is produced, it cannot be ascertained which country it is incorporated in. But the appellant contends that it is based in Guernsey albeit without any evidence. Thus, the Assessing Officer has rightly assumed the jurisdiction under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, because both the conditions are satisfied i.e. the appellant is a beneficial owner of the undisclosed foreign bank accounts and has not provided any explanatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (100 x 20/50) lakh= Rs. 40 lakh, C=Rs. (100-40) lakh=Rs. 60 lakh. 72. Removal of doubts For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that- ...... (c) where any asset has been acquired or made prior to commencement of this Act, and no declaration in respect of such asset is made under this Chapter, such asset shall be deemed to have been acquired or made in the year in which a notice under section 10 is issued by the Assessing Officer and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. Analysis Section 72(c) provides that, if the foreign asset has been acquired or made prior to commencement of this Act and no declaration in respect of such asset is made under section 59, such asset shall be deemed to have been acquired or made in the year in which notice for assessment issued by the assessing officer. Further, Rule of Valuation of undisclosed foreign assets contained in "Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Rules , 2015" (hereinafter referred as "the Valuation Rules"), too, gives indication of such retrospective applicability, in the following manner - Rule 3 (1) (e) Black Money (Undisclosed Fore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(e). Therefore, tax and penalty needs to be paid on such fair market value and not on the balance as on date. Question No. 20: A person held a foreign bank account for a limited period between 1994-95 and 1997-98 which was unexplained. Since such account was closed in 1997-98 does he need to declare the same under Chapter VI of the Act? Answer: Section 59 of the Act provides that the declaration may be made of any undisclosed foreign asset which has been acquired from income which has not been charged to tax under the Income-tax Act. Since the investment in the bank account was unexplained and was from untaxed income the same may be declared under Chapter VI of the Act. The consequences of non-declaration may arise under the Act at any time in the future when the information of such account comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Question No.22: A person acquired a house property in a foreign country during the year 2000-01 from unexplained sources of income. The property was sold in 2007-08 and the proceeds were deposited in a foreign bank account. Does he need to declare both the assets under Chapter VI of the Act and pay tax on both the assets? Answ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Whether for the purpose of declaration, the undisclosed foreign asset should be held by the declarant on the date of declaration? Answer: No, there is no such requirement. The declaration may be made if the foreign asset was acquired out of undisclosed income even if the same has been disposed off and is not held by the declarant on the date of declaration. ISSUE 3 Does the FAQ 31 of the CBDT circular exclude the beneficial owner's definition under the PMLA Act, 2002 and restricts the definition of beneficial owner to that defined under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act? (Ground Nos - 5, 8, 11 and 12) The appellant's counsel has relied on Swiss FTA's letter on Page 33 of the Paperbook - Volume I, to contend that the beneficial ownership information collected for anti-money laundering purposes cannot be used for tax purposes. Further, the appellant's counsel has repeatedly relied on FAQ 31 of the Circular no. 13 of 2015 dated 6 July 2015 to contend that the beneficial owner under the AML regulations cannot be considered as beneficial owner for the purpose of the BMA. Question No. 31: A person is a beneficiary in a forei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....144A], Chapter XV and sections 237, 240, 245, 280, 280A, 280B, 280D, 281, 281B and 284 of the Income-tax Act shall apply with necessary modifications as if the said provisions refer to undisclosed foreign income and asset instead of to income-tax. If the intention of the legislature was to restrict the definition of the beneficial owner to that provided under the Income tax Act, it would have been so provided expressly in the BMA. In the absence of such express provision, to restrict the meaning of beneficial owner to that under 139(1) of Income tax act would be absurd. Hence, as correctly held in the case of ACIT v Jatinder Mehra (2021] 128 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi - Trib.) we may take cues to interpret the said term from the other Indian laws and reputed legal dictionaries. 25. However, as the entity involved where the money is found credited, it needs to be examined whether the assessee has 'beneficial ownership' on these companies/ entities. As stated earlier The Black Money Act 2015 does not define the term 'beneficial ownership' and The Income-tax Act 1961 explanation 4 to Section 139 (1) defines the same. However, it is not necessary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by virtue of their shareholding or management rights or shareholders agreements or voting agreements or in any other manner;.. Section 2(fa) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 "Beneficial owner" means an individual who ultimately owns or controls a client of a reporting entity or the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted and includes a person who exercises ultimate effective control over a juridical person;] Rule 9(3) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 The beneficial owner for the purpose of sub-rule (1) shall be determined as under - (a) where the client is a company, the beneficial owner is the natural person(s), who, whether acting alone or together, or through one or more juridical person, has a controlling ownership interest or who exercises control through other means. Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-clause- 1. "Controlling ownership interest" means ownership of or entitlement to more than twenty-five percent of shares or capital or profits of the company; 2. "Control" shall include the right to appoint majority of the directors or to control the management or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of ownership" Klaus Vogel "Beneficial owner is a person who is free to decide whether or not the capital or other assets should be used or made available for use by others (i.e., the right over capital), or how the yields from them should be used (i.e., the right over income), or both" Webster's dictionary Beneficial owner is a person who is entitled to receive the income of an "estate without its title, custody or control." Analysis On a holistic reading of the above definitions, it is clear that there exist two primary conditions for a person to be considered as the beneficial owner: • A person who exercises effective control of the legal entity through ownership or otherwise; or • Is entitled to the benefits of the asset/interest without having legal ownership. In the present case, there is no doubt that the appellant had effective control over the trust. He had right to appoint/remove trustee's at his will. Further, it is common knowledge that the corporate trustees in tax haven jurisdictions are merely paid service providers and always act according to the directions of their clients. Following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."it is upon the alleger to prove that it is so, ignores the reality". When we follow the path, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra), by "considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities" and do not take "a superficial approach to the problem", the inescapable conclusion is that the explanation of the assessee is only fit to be rejected... 46. While we have noted the claim of the assessee that she is a discretionary beneficiary of Tharani Family Trust, that fact does not find mention in the base note. As we have clearly analyzed above, the base note shows that the assessee was beneficial owner or beneficiary of GWU Investments Ltd. We may add that in the rema the remand report filed by the Assessing Officer, there is a reference to some unsigned draft copy of the trust deed having been filed before him but neither this deed is authentic nor is it placed before us in the paper-book. The assessee has not submitted the trust deed or any related papers but merely referred to a somewhat tentative claim made in a letter between one Mahesh Tharani, apparently a relative of the assessee and the HSBC Private Bank (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon. Ambrish Manoj Dhupelia v DCIT, Mumbai [2017] 87 taxmann.com 195 (Mumbai - Trib.) Furthermore, I find that in the present case, from the employee of the said foreign bank, sovereign government of Germany comes into possession of documents relating to the deposit in the said bank. These deposit and detail give the name and address, date of birth, passport copy and all relevant particulars of the assessee. Then the sovereign government of Germany passes on this information to the sovereign government of India. Thereafter, the said document and information comes into the possession of Central Board of Direct Taxes and, thereafter, to the assessing officer. In this scenario, the assessee claim that the assessee has no information about the said bank deposit is totally unsustainable. That assessee's name and address, date of birth, passport copy and other particulars were planted in those documents to the prejudice of the assessee by some unknown person is totally an unbelievable story. That some good Samaritan deposited that huge amount for the benefit of the assessee in the said foreign bank account and gave all the names and address and particulars of the assessee wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iculars of the real or beneficial owner. It was noted that the petitioner had not disputed his signatures on the documents. The objection was with reference to date of signing. The identity of the petitioner was also established by verified copy of the passport. 37 BSI Bank Limited, Singapore had also conducted due diligence vide Know Your Customer information. This information pertained and was relating to the petitioner, Main Akhtar Qureshi i.e. beneficial owner. The information states that Ajit Prasad, father -in-law of the daughter of the petitioner, was an existing client of the said bank and two employees of the bank had known Ajit Prasad for the last five years. Ajit Prasad had introduced the petitioner, Moin Aktar Qureshi. Further, the following facts demonstrate that the appellant was the beneficial owner as well as asset contributor of the alleged trusts: • The personal credit card bills of the appellant were found to have been debited Credit Suisse account of Sorwood development S.A. • Also, remittance of GBP 4,89,210 was made to the Herritor investment which in tum has granted loan to Kinetic holdings limited. Remittances were also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the AML regulations recording ultimate beneficial ownership cannot be used as evidence under tax proceedings. ISSUE 4 Whether the Tribunal . order dated 24 December 2020 in Wealth Tax proceedings can be relied upon by the appellant for the proceedings under BMA? [Ground Nos-1 and2] Extract from the Tribunal Order in case of appellant in appeal no. W.T.A. No. 02 to 08/Mum/2020 - Assessment Year: 2007-08 to 2013-14 33. We are in agreement with the submission of the assessee that the narrow remit of 'assets' under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, held to be an exhaustive definition, does not permit eligibility of offshore assets of an offshore trust to wealth tax in the hands of the Assessee. We hold that there is no room for intendment in a taxing statute. 38. Coming to the argument of the tax authorities that the undisclosed bank accounts in the foreign bank will be considered as the cash in hand and it will be included in the taxable wealth of the assessee, this argument is misplaced considering the fact that the definition of assets in the section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax does not have a separate assets category for cash in bank.... Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nos - 2 and 15] Excerpts from The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. 2015 ("BMA") 4. Scope of total undisclosed foreign income and asset (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the total undisclosed foreign income and asset of any previous year of an assessee shall be,-... (3) The income included in the total undisclosed foreign income and asset under this Act shall not form part of the total income under the Income-tax Act. 5. Computation of total undisclosed foreign income and asset (1) In computing the total undisclosed foreign income and asset of any previous year of an assessee, -... (ii) any income, - (a) which has been assessed to tax for any assessment year under the Income-tax Act prior to the assessment year to which this Act applies; or (b) which is assessable or has been assessed to tax for anti assessment year under this Act, shall be reduced from the value of the undisclosed asset located outside India, if the assessee furnishes evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the asset has been acquired from the income which has been assessed or is assessable, as the case may b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Further, Section 5(1)(ii)(b) of the BMA provides credit for income that has already been assessed under the Income tax Act. In the present case, BMA is invoked only for undisclosed foreign assets. Hence, section 5(1)(ii)(b) does not apply. Thus, in the absence of the express provisions under the Income Tax Act which bars the initiation of proceedings under the BMA, the tax authorities have correctly proceeded under the BMA. ISSUE 6 If the appellant was precluded from filling voluntary declaration under Section 59 of the BMA due to express bar under Section 71 of the BMA, can he be liable to tax under BMA? Excerpt from The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 ("BMA") Chapter not to apply to certain persons 71. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply- (d) in relation to any undisclosed asset located outside India which has been acquired from income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act for any previous year relevant to an assessment year prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2016: (i) where a notice under section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MA and must be allowed to proceed against the appellant to unearth the true extent of undisclosed assets located outside India. 36. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. We note that we are sitting in appeal against the dismissal by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee's challenge to judicial defect in issuing notice by the A.O. under BM Act to the assessee. We note that the assessee's challenge in this regard before the ld. CIT(A) was pending for quite some time. The assessee had to approach the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in this regard. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has given certain direction. 37. The Hon'ble High Court had noted that the assessment proceedings in the meanwhile, were in progress against which the jurisdictional issue was raised. The Hon'ble High Court directed to the ld. CIT(A) that he shall dispose of the pending appeal before it within a period of four weeks from today that was 30.03.2021. That the assessment proceedings to go on. That the results of the assessment proceedings will be subject to the decision of the ld. CIT(A). Now we note that the A.O. has already concluded his assessment proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ITAT in the aforesaid Wealth Tax order has already been extensively dealt with in the aforesaid orders of the ld. CIT(A) but the same may be reiterated in the summary of the same here as well. 39. We note that the ITAT in wealth tax proceedings have already given a finding that the assessee was nominated as one of several beneficiaries of an offshore irrevocable discretionary trust, settled-in the year 1989 by the assessee's non-resident late maternal uncle Shri Pratap Malpani. That the assessee was not a contributor to the trust structure. That the assessee is not liable to be construed as sole beneficiary of the trust. That the Revenue cannot collapse the offshore trust structure. That the assessee was not a 'substantial owner' of the assets settled upon trust held through Knitec Holdings Ltd. That the bank account in foreign jurisdictions pertaining to offshore entities could not be treated as bank accounts of the assessee even though for anti-money laundering purposes the assessee had been declared as 'beneficial owner'. That the case of the Revenue is not that the investments were moved from India by the settler or any beneficiaries. It is a fact on record that there ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....take a contrary stand in the proceedings before the ITAT that now they are doubting the veracity of the trust deed settled by Shri Pratap Malpani. Once it is held that the Revenue is not doubting the said trust deed, the entire edifice of Revenue's case in this case fails as it is clear that the said trust was settled by the assessee's maternal non residential uncle Shri Pratap Malpani. As held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Malaysian International Trading Corporation vs. Mega Safe Deposit Vaults (P.) Ltd. (supra) that where no evidence adduce regarding the foreign law, the presumption is that it is the same as Indian law on the point in consideration. The assessee's contention in this regard was that in such circumstances, the trust settled abroad has to be taken as under the Indian trust. In such circumstances, the rights and duties of the settler is governed with reference to appointment of trustees and control over assets. In such circumstances, the migration of the trust assets does not alter the irrevocable nature of the trust settlement. The reliance upon the said case laws and the submissions has been rejected by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are already separately going on.Hence by no stretch of imagination can lead to a conclusion that incomes are not been assessed as the Revenue has not dropped its plea/withdrawn its plea, that these incomes are not exigible to income tax. Once it is so held, these assets cannot again be the subject matter of black money proceedings at this stage, as it will amount to double prejudice to the assessee which is not sustainable in law. 45. We further note that another grievance of the assessee is that various materials which have been referred by learned CIT(A) in his order rejecting the jurisdictional challenge have not been confronted to the assessee at the time of learned CIT(A)'s order dismissing the jurisdictional challenge. We note that this is a very germane point as the principle of natural justice in this regard have been ignored by learned CIT(A). It is evident that the catena of documents which learned CIT(A) has referred are in fact lifted by him from the final order of the Assessing Officer to support his order. These were never confronted to the assessee. In this view of the matter order of learned CIT(A) suffers from jurisdictional infirmity in as much as it is contrar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is no such bar in the black money act. However, we note that definition of undisclosed asset in the back money act clearly provides that assets created out of income assessed in income tax already shall be excluded. Hence, when the revenue has already assessed these assets under income tax proceedings upto previous Assessment Year and for current assessment year time for filing the return has not expired, assessee's plea that the issue of notice is premature is tenable and accordingly we accept the same. The bar in the ACT is inbuilt inasmuch as it has been provided that assets out of income assessed to income tax shall be excluded from the purview of undisclosed asset in Black Money Act. Hence, it is abundantly clear that as per the scheme of the act, there cannot be a simultaneously proceedings on the same asset/income under Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as Black Money Act. The doctorine of double prejudice does come into play here. Above discussion amply prove that the assessee's challenge before the ld CITA to denial of liability in the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice under black money act deserves to succeed. 48. Various other facets of learned CIT(A)'s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....कà¥à¤¤, केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ Commiss. अतिरिकà¥à¤¤ of the Add al of 73-4 of Inco Tax, at मà¥à¤¹à¤° Aunluist (ANU KRISHNA AGGARWAL) Addl Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4,Mumbai. Document 2 ANNEXURE 511 1. It has come to the notice of this office from the information received under the DTAA treaty with mobile Switzerland that you are the beneficial owner of the undisclosed Bank Account No. 1282411 with Credit Suisse held in the name of Mokopane Limited. The document pasted below clearly states that you are the ultimate owner of the assets deposited. Numbered Accour ERFASST CREDIT SUISSE Farm & punianto Art: 3 and 4 of the CDB Establishment of the Beneficial Owner's Ident.y 621 CLIENT-10 MOKOPANE UMITED Bercial Owner The bombicial we refers to the person who ow does not necisely have to be ged C835-1282411-3 male owner of the ass deposed The orary of signatory authority of the business the beneficial mania). BIRLA YASHOVARDHAN. INDIAN D BIRIA HOUSE, 21 MOUNT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....furnish a copy of the complete bank statement of above account since the opening of the above account till date or till the date of closure, chever is earlier alongwith explanation of all the deposits/credits appearing in the said account. 2 1900 BURT DEC COPY Document 4 आयकर आ आयà¥à¤•à¥à¤¤, Commissioner of the Add 513 3. It has come to the notice of this office from the information received under the DTAA treaty with Switzerland that you are the beneficial owner of the undisclosed Bank Account no. 40639 in Credit Suisse held in the name of Sorwood Development SA. The document scanned and pasted below proves this fact. MIKROFILM Kto/Depot-Nummern 0835-40639-1 747 INFOLOCK-Stelle Zürich ERFASST A 888 Vertragsparter Sorvood Development S.A. B.V.I. Feststellung des wirtschaftlich Berechtigten (Formular A games Art. 3 und 4 VSB) Der/Die Unterzeichnete erklärt hiermit Zureffendes ankr dass der Vertragspartner an den eingebrachten Werten wirtschaftlich berechtigt ist dass an den eingebrachten Werten wirtschaftlich berechtigt ist: Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the DTAA treaty with Switzerland that you are the beneficial owner of the undisclosed Bank Account no. 1510428 in Credit Suisse held in the name of Alea Management Limited as is evident from the document scanned and pasted below. 1230 1385 CREDIT SUISSE A Heading of account Establishment of the Beneficial Owner's Identity Form HSBC Private Bank (Suissel SA Alea Management Ltd. Contracting perin onla Contracting partner.egal Entity The Contracting partner hereby declares: Alea Management Ltd. where p the the Contracting partner is the sole beneficial owner of the assets concerned that the beneficial owners of the assets concerned intere A Summ/Crete Name: First Name: Date of Birth: Nationality: BumCorporate Name: First Name Date of Birth Nationality BIRLA Yashovardhan 29.09.1967 India Zimant flensant Rat. Korbey 400006. India C Sumame/Corporate Name: First Name Date of Birth: Nedonality Conracing partnernes ointm the Denk of his own sopard, trout any changes hy antering Salse informagorin this form is criminal offence lart. 251 of the Swiss Penal Code, forgery of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax, Centra CERTIFIED TRUE COPY Document 8 आयकर आयà¥à¤•à¥à¤¤, Commissione 7. 517 It has come to the notice of this office from the information received under the DTAA treaty with Singapore that you are the beneficial owner of the following bank accounts as is evident from the documents scanned and pasted below. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE AND THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THE PREVENTION OF FISCAL EVASION WITH RESPECT TO TAXES ON INCOME ARTICLE 28-EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION INDIA ENTITY 1 SINGAPORE ENTITIES SHRI YASHOVARDHAN BIRLA BARCLAYS BANK PLC CREDIT SUISSE AG 1. We refer to your letter dated 28 April 2014. 2. We are pleased to provide the following bank information with respect to Mr. Yashovardhan Birla:- From Credit Suisse AG: a. Credit Suisse AG has provided the following accounts where Mr. Yashovardhan Birla is the beneficial owner. Acc No. 125042 125114 125132 Acc Name Mokopane Limited Kinetic Holdings Limited Ales Management Limited Acc Closing Date NA 28 June 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Confiance Limited 91318600 Barclays Bank 6 Kinetic Holdings Limited 91403800 Barclays Bank 8. It has come to the notice of this office from information received under DTAA treaty with Switzerland that you are the beneficial owner in the following offshore entities. You are, therefore, required to furnish the details of all the other bank accounts of the following entities alongwith a copy of bank statement since the opening of the bank accounts till date or date of closure whichever is earlier: Sr. Name of the Offshore Bank A/c Opening Mokopane Limited Kinetic Holdings Limited No. Entity i. iii. Sorwood Development SA iv. Alea Management Ltd. V. Anrid LLC vi. No. date Closing Name of bank/ date Branch/ Address Confiance Ltd as Trustee of The Banyan Trust 9. You are required to furnish details of any inter-account transfers made by you and also furnish proof of the same in all the above mentioned bank accounts so that credit for the same can be given to you while computing your income under this Act. 10. It is seen from the details that come of the bank accounts have....