TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act'], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had granted relief in appeal preferred by the Assessee against the assessment orders/penalty orders for the Assessment Years 1997-1998, 2001-2002 and 2008-2009.Since the appeals arise from common factual matrix, the same are being disposed off by way of a common order. 2. When the appeals/cross-objections were taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Assessee. We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material on record including the orders is passed by authorities below and documents/orders furnished by the Learned Departmental Representative vide Letter, dated 03/03/2025, in compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal. 3. On perusal of material on record following facts emerge: 3.1. The Assessee in the present case is the daughter of Mr. Jaswant Singh Yashpal [hereinafter referred to as 'JSY'] and Mrs. Blodwen Yashpal. JSY was Person of Indian origin having British nationality. JSY worked as a pilot/flight engineer with the airlines outside India. After working with Kuwait Airlines for more than 25 years, JSY retired in the year 1993 and decided to live in United Kingdom before returni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment since various credits in the Foreign Bank Account were not offered to tax in India. The reassessment proceedings for the various assessment years culminated into passing of the assessment orders under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied in respect of additions made. 3.6. The present batch of appeals/Cross objections pertains to the following assessment/re-assessment orders and penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer: Appeal No. Assessment Year (Impugned Order Dated) Proceeding (Order Dated) Particulars Amount (INR) 5309 1997-1998 (21/08/2024) Reassessment (24/03/2015) Addition made - Unexplained Investment: 81,89,072 : 81,89,072/- 5311 1997-1998 (21/08/2024) Penalty (26/08/2015) Income sought to be evaded - Unexplained Investment: 81,89,072 : 81,89,072/- Penalty levied @ 300% of tax : 97,48,887/- 5138 2001-2002 (11/07/2024) Reassessment (30/03/2015) Addition made - Unexplained Investment: 96,80,005 : 96,80,005/- 5137 2001-2002 (11/07/2024) Penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclosed deposits in foreign bank account and owning of undisclosed immovable property outside India. 3 Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in acknowledging the fact that the AD has passed a speaking order based on facts and documents furnished by the assessee, whereas the Ld. CIT(A) is of use that the assessment done is protective in nature. 4 Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961-43 ITR 387 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 5. Whether on facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance to AO by the way of calling remand report, if any additional evidence were produced before the appellate authority." 6. The Assessee has raised following cross-objections in C.O. No.260/Mum/2024: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order u/s 143(3) rws....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned CIT(A) deleted the addition of INR. 81,89,072/- made in the hands of the Assessee. 10. Therefore, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the CIT(A) has proceeded to admit the additional evidence and grant relief without complying with the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (for short 'IT Rules'). 11. On perusal of material on record, we find that the Assessing Officer had made the addition holding that the Assessee had failed provide evidence of source of investment made in the purchase of Foreign Asset. Therefore, the evidence furnished by the Assessee before the CIT(A) was in the nature of additional evidence. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the CIT(A), we find that no remand report has been called for in relation to additional evidence and the same has been taken into consideration without confronting the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention advance on behalf of the Revenue that the provisions contained in Rule 46A of the IT Rules were not complied with. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A). However, taking note of the fact that the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/08/2024, additions forming basis of levy of penalty were deleted in the quantum appeal preferred by the Assessee against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 1997-1998. In the appeal preferred by the Revenue [ITA No.5309/Mum/2024] challenging the against the aforesaid order of the CIT(A) passed in quantum appeal, we have set aside the additions and have restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer. The additions on the basis of which penalty was levied have been set aside and therefore, the penalty levied on the basis of the same cannot be sustained. However, the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings as per law while passing the assessment order in terms of directions issued in quantum appeal [ITA No.5309/Mum/2024]. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed. 16. Since, we have dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the grounds raised in the Cross Objections do not require adjudication and the same are also dismissed. 17. In result, the appeal and the cross objections are dismissed. Assessment Year 2008-2009(Quantum Appeal) ITA No. 5503/MUM/2024 & C.O. No.270/Mum/2024 18. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee did not raise that issue during the appellate proceedings „inadvertently‟ as there is no evidence regarding the same." 20. The Assessee has raised following cross-objections in CO No.270/Mum/2024: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order under Section 143(3) rws. 147 is bad in law because the AO himself accepted the fact that the amount has already been offered and assessed in the bands of assessee's father, same was added again and assessed again in the hands of the assessee on protective basis; assessment made u/s 143(3) rws. 147 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order under Section 143(3) rws. 147 is bad in law became it did not take into consideration that the said income has been charged to tax in the hands of the father of the assessee, assessment made u/s 143(3) rws. 147 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, filing appeal to Hon'ble Tribunal when the tax effect in the given case is much lower than the monetary threshold as specified in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17 Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer had also taken into consideration the fact that investment for acquisition of the Foreign Asset was considered as unexplained investment in the hands of the Assessee in Assessment Year 1997-1998. Further, we note that the Revenue has challenged the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the grounds that undisclosed deposits in the foreign accounts were used for the purchase of the Foreign Asset during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 1997-1998. Accordingly, adjudication of issues pertaining to Assessment Year 1997-1998 would have a bearing on the adjudication of the issue of taxability of Long Term Capital Gains in the hands of the Assessee in the Assessment Year 2008-2009. Therefore, we deemed it appropriate to set aside the issue of taxability of Long Term Capital Gain arising from sale of the Foreign Asset back to the file of Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the issue afresh after taking into consideration the assessment order to be passed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 1997-1998 pursuant to the directions issued by the Tribunal in ITA No.5309/Mum/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 1997-1998. Accordingly, addition of INR. 41,11,70....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taxing the same interest income in the hands of the Assessee does not arise. Accordingly, addition of INR. 13,97,387/- in the hands of the Assessee cannot be sustained. To this extent the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) is confirmed, although, for different reason as stated hereinbefore. 26. In view of the above, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are treated as partly allowed. Similarly, all the grounds raised by the Assessee by way of Cross Objections are treated as partly allowed. 27. In result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee are treated as partly allowed. Assessment Year 2008-2009 (Penalty Appeal) ITA No. 5502/MUM/2024 & C.O. No.272/Mum/2024 28. Now, we will take up ITA No.5502/Mum/2024 and Cross Objection No.272/Mum/2024 for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 arising from the order of the CIT(A) whereby the penalty of INR. 40,53,510/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the CIT(A). 29. On perusal of the order impugned, we find that the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that vide order dated 21/08/2024, additions forming basis of levy of pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned on the foreign bank account, whereas, in the instant case the issue pertains to the deposit of GBP 1,38.696.83 and GBP 1,28,799.62 (Rate of Exchange Rs. 67.34), which amounts to Rs. 1.93.60,010/- and 50% of the aforesaid amount has been rightly added to the resident account holders amounting to Rs. 96,80,005/-. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in acknowledging the fact that the AO has passed a speaking order based on facts and documents furnished by the assessee, whereas the Ld. CIT(A) is of view that the assessment done is protective in nature. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalja Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961 43 ITR 187 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 5. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance in AO by the way of calling remand report, if any additional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., respectively and there is an opening balance of GBP 846.52. Therefore, total deposits comes to GBP 2,87,496.45. Since, no explanation regarding the source of the aforesaid deposits have been furnished, the aforesaid amount is liable to be added to total income of the account holders. Since, the father of the assessee Shri Yashpal Jaswant Singh, PAN: ACKPY1985J is Non-Resident during the assessment year under consideration, the 50% of amount is assessed in each of the two resident joint account holders. Ms Blodwen Yashpal (PAN ACNPY1987H) and the assessee, Ms Satya Kim Yashpal (PAN: AAFPY8166N), who are equal beneficiaries of the aforesaid bank accounts. 7.4. Accordingly, GBP 1,43,748/22 is assessed in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 96,80,005/- (GBP@ Rs. 67.34) is made to the total income as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. (Add:Rs. 96,80,005/-) Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) are initiated for non-compliance as statement of HSBC bank account was not furnished in response to notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the CIT(A) has concluded as under: "6. Decision on point-wise grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant: Ground No. 3 3. The learned Assessing Officer could not have added Rs. 96,80,005/- as unexplained Investment in foreign bank account merely on presumption and conjectures by ignoring the irrefutable evidence furnished by the Appellant. Decision: Ground no. 3, being on the merit of the case, is dealt first. In the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 and A.Y. 2005-06, the appellate order has been decided in her favour on the same issue. The relevant portion of the said appellate order for A.Y. 2005-06 is pasted as under: 6. Observation and decision At the outset and before dealing with the grounds of appeal it needs to be stated that evidently the above submission has no relevance in the context of the present case. The only addition made by the AO in the impugned assessment order quoted above was of Rs. 2,63,760/-, being interest stated to have been earned by the appellant from a foreign bank account with HSBC, on a protective basis. Also both grounds of appeal are directed against the said addition. The written submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31.10.2000 Trf ANZ Fv S K Yashpal 1,58,696.83 846.52 20.11.2000 Fiduciary Deposit Investment 1,04,012 (1,03,165.48) 20.11.2000 TRF MRS B Yashpal 25,013 (1,28,178.62) 20.11.2000 Fiduciary Deposit Repayment 1,28,799.62 621.14 31.12.2000 Account Statement Fee 60 541.14 The account was jointly held ......................." 41. A bare perusal of the above shows that GBP. 1,58,693.83/- and GBP. 1,28,799.62/- credited to the Foreign Bank Account on 31/10/2000 and 20/11/2000, respectively, were 'Fiduciary Deposit Repayment'. This clearly supports the stand taken by the Assessee that the aforesaid two amounts were received on the maturity of deposits made in the earlier years. The Assessee has, in the Cross Objection, taken a stand that the source of the deposits was earning/savings of her father and the amount received on maturity of such deposits could not have been brought to tax in the hands of the Assessee as unexplained investment during the relevant previous year. Keeping in view of the facts as emerging f....