TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. All the appeals have same nature of facts and common issue, so ITA No.6229/Mum/2025 for A.Y. 2002-03 is taken as lead case. 3. The revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No.6229/Mum/2025 "1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the substantive as well as protective additions made an account of deposits and interest income received by the assessee in the foreign bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva, by disregarding the fact that the assessee had opened and failed to disclose the said foreign bank account in his Return of Income? 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was justified in not treating the BUP IDs as account numbers, thereby disregarding the information received in the Base Note from the Government of France under the Indo-France DTAA?" 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the substantive as well as protective addition made on account of deposits and interest income in the foreign bank account maintained by the assessee with HSBC Bank, Ge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f US$ 55,44,646. It was stated that the account was opened by Mr. M.K. Shetty under instructions of Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, and after his death, the names of his sons, Shri Anil D. Ambani and Shri Mukesh D. Ambani were included as beneficiaries. It was further alleged that another account existed in HSBC Bank with BUP ID 5090260976, opened in the year 2000, which had not been disclosed by the legal heirs. The Ld. AO completed assessments under section 143(3) read with section 147, holding that in the absence of clarity regarding the exact share of beneficial ownership among the deceased assessee and his two sons, the additions were to be allocated equally among the three. Accordingly, 1/3rd of the amounts were added substantively in the hands of each person and the remaining 2/3rd on a protective basis. Similarly, the assessee's assessments for A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2006- 07 were reopened on the basis of a "Base Note" available with the Ld. AO, purportedly containing details of deposits in bank accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva. In the recorded reasons, the Ld. AO referred to three alleged accounts bearing Client Profile No. 5091327690, BUP ID No. 5090260976, and BUP ID No. 5090....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation powers. This information pertained to certain Indian nationals and residents holding undisclosed foreign bank accounts with HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland, which had not been reported to the Indian tax authorities. The Ld. AR pointed out that this issue has been squarely dealt with by the Ld. AO in the impugned assessment order. In this context, the Ld. AO has recorded, at paragraph 3 on page 2 of impugned assessment order, the following:- "3. On perusal of copy of the Base Note of Shri. Anil D. Ambani having BUP ID 5090160983 it has also been observed that the narration of people related to customer profile includes following: - 1) Flag Telecom Grp Ltd (BUP ID 5090281031) and; 2) First Corporate Director Inc. (BUP ID 5090248786) of which relevant customer profile is Canbar Holdings Corporations (BUP ID 5091327690) Both these entities are located outside India. It follows that the assessee has links with and/or interests in these two foreign entities as well. As per the provisions of proviso 2 to Sec 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961, these are covered as asset including financial interest in any entity located outside India. The assessee has neither ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cost of about USD 300 per year would be incurred. In the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2001-02 dated 30.12.2019, the amount required to open the account of USD 1,00,000 was added in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation with BUP ID 5090260976. In light of these facts and as per the information available on record, one third (1/3) of the amount required to open the account of USD 1,00,000 and deposit of USD 55,44,646 as on March, 2002 equivalent to Rs. 48,80,000/- and Rs. 27,05,78,725/- respectively (calculated at the exchange rate of INR of 48.8 to 1 USD prevailing as on 31-03-2002 as per Rule 115 of Income Tax Rules) in the account in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation with BUP ID 5091327690 is assessed in the hands of the assessee. Hence, the amount of USD 33,333 and USD 18,48,215 and as on March, 2002 equivalent to Rs. 16,26,667/ and Rs. 9,01,92,908/- (calculated at the exchange rate of INR of 48.8 to 1 USD prevailing as on 31-03-2002 as per Rule 115 of Income Tax Rules) is assessed as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, one third (1/3) of the amount req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 48.8 to 1 USD prevailing as on 31-03-2002 as per Rule 115 of Income Tax Rules) in the account in the name of assessee himself with BUP ID 5090160983 is assessed as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceeding is initiated separately u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of particulars of income." 9. The Ld. DR further argued and relied on the order of co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Renu T Tharani vs DCIT (2020) 117 taxmnn.com 804 (Mum Trib.). The relevant para 13 is reproduced as below:- "13. To adjudicate on this question, facts of the case, in detail, need to be taken note of. The assessee before us is an individual. The assessee had filed her income tax return, on 29th July 2006, disclosing an income of Rs. 1,70,800 for the relevant previous year, but subsequently the investigation wing of the income tax department, as noted in the earlier part of this order, received information that the assessee is having a bank account with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA Geneva. Based on this information, a copy of which is placed before us at pages 3 to 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayman, (PO Box No 715, KYI-1107), and is does not belong to Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani. The bank further clarifies that as per their records GWU Investments Lid used to be an underlying company of Tharani Family Trusts for Mrs. Renu Tharani was a discretionary beneficiary. The HSBC Bank in Geneva may have asked GWL Investments Lid the proof of identity as well as proof of address of all the beneficiaries. The company may have provided my passport as proof of her identity and proof of address. As the address mentioned in the passport is that of Mumbai, hence the base note showed the account of GWU Investments Lid along with my Mumbai address. As the address does not maintain any bank account with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA in Switzerland, the question of explaining any source of deposit does not arise. Without prejudice to above, the 11SBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA also confirms the fact, in their letter dated 5th January 2015, that according to their best of knowledge. Tharani Family Trust (GWL Investments Limited) has been terminated and none of the assets deposited with HSC Bank Private Bank (Suisse) SA were distributed to Mrs. Renu Tharani." 10. The Ld.AR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5091327690 for account holder Canbar Holding Corporation mentioned in the Base Note showing maximum peak balance of USD 55,46,646 has already been taxed in the A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 13.01.2012 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the BUP ID 5090260976 was the name id of Canbar Holding Corporation linked to a/c no. 5091327690 and not another bank account as discussed supra in the order. 11.4 Looking to the above facts and finding we don't find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, ground of appeal 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 11. The Ld.AR also invited our attention to the order of coordinate bench of ITAT-Mumbai in the case of Shri Mukesh D Ambani (supra). The relevant paragraphs 5 to 10 are extracted below:- "5. Ld. Counsel clarified the specific queries by the Bench on certain aspects. The first specific query raised by the Bench was in respect of whether any specific submissions/clarification was furnished before the Id. Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings on the claim made as to only one BUP ID exist which starts with "5090" and the another ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ID mentioned against the name field, which starts with 5090. There is another ID mentioned against the Customer Profile, which starts with 5091. This is irrespective of schether the name of the customer is same with the profile name. Hence, it is evident that the BUP ID is like a customer relationship number and the profile no is like a bank account number. 5.1. On another query by the Bench in respect of how ld. Assessing Officer arrived at a figure of USD 1,00,000 (approx.) as initial deposit made to open the bank account and cost of about USD 300 per year to be incurred towards maintenance of the said account. In this respect Id. CIT DR referred to the reasons recorded for the process of re-opening of the case and pointed that the same is contained as under: "As per available information a deposit of USD 100000 (approx) is to be made to open such an account and cost of about USD 300 per year would be incurred, which information and the source thereof have not been disclosed by the assessee in the said return of income." 5.2. Further, Id. Counsel also referred to para-18 and pointed out that Id. Assessing Officer merely stated that this figure is based ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etails such as date of birth, place of residence, sex, marital status, etc. It is logical to contain a business partner identification number along with such details. Besides, the BUP ID 5090160984 is quoted under the heading "identifiers internes which translates in to "internal identifiers. A business partner identification no. which is akin to (customer relation no. in India). 18.2 The factual details regarding the BUP ID has already been discussed in while deciding the additions made on account of BUP ID 50901 60976 in the A.Y 2001-02. It is observed that for every person the BUP ID is only stated in the "Name" field. Nowhere in the Client Profile Concerned field, is there any reference of BUP ID. Most importantly, nowhere in the Base Note, the account like details such as maximum balance, status, type, etc. is shown for any of the BUP ID. Had the BUP ID been an account there is no reason for similar details, os given for the Client Profile Nos, would not have been in the Base Note. In fact, this is the I reason that while the AG has made additions towards the peak balance and interest for the Chent Profile No. 5091327690 in the subsequent assessment years, he dal not ....