TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to be quashed as the same does not contain DIN and also does not mention the reasons for not containing DIN in violation of CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in holding the asset held by the appellant, being shares of Baxter Inc., as undisclosed asset under the Black Money, (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the order of Assessing officer without appreciating that the deeming fiction contained in section 10(3) of the Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 cannot be applied to assets and is only applicable on undisclosed income. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in invoking the provisions of section 72(c) of the Act for upholding the addition, which was not relied upon by the learned AO. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has invoked the provisions of section 72(c) of the Act without providing any notice for the same. Hence, the order is passed in violation of principle ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deducted abroad, there is no requirement of disclosure and paying taxes under the Indian Income Tax law. If reported, he could have claimed relief under Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of 30% of withholding tax on dividend. Thus, there would have been no loss to the revenue. 3.2. During impugned assessment year the Ld. AO received information from Addl. DIT (I & C Investigation), Unit-1, Mumbai that the assessee received the dividend income for AY 14-15 & AY 2015-16 amount to US$ 3373 & 2090 respectively. In this regard notice U/s 133(6) of the Income tax Act. The assessee replied that due DTAA no tax is payable in India related to dividend earned in USA. Hence, the income is not declared in India. On perusal of the record the revenue found that the assessee disclosed the foreign assets in schedule FA in AY 2016-17. However, the assessee has not declared the foreign dividend income in India in his ITRs for relevant AYs. With respect to such dividend income received by the assessee for AY 14-15, AY 15-16 and AY 16-17 is annexed below in tabulated format. A.Y US$ Rs. Remarks 2014-15 812 48,665.00 Converted @59.92 as on 31/03/2014 2015-16 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the ACIT vs Srinjoy Bose 2023 (6) TMI 22-ITAT Kolkata (Annexure-I), "13. Now, in light of the provisions of Section 2(11) & 2(12) of the Black Money Act, 2015 first we notice that in the instant case the issue is only with regard to the alleged undisclosed foreign asset ie. the investment in the insurance policy and there is no issue of undisclosed foreign income because the assessee only received the reduced amount of investment. So, we will just focus on the issue that as to whether the alleged foreign asset is an undisclosed asset located outside India. Provision of Section 2(11) of the Black Money Act, 2015 provides for the definition of undisclosed asset located outside India as stated above, and in our humble understanding, following two conditions need to be fulfilled by the Revenue authorities to bring a particular foreign asset under the category of undisclosed asset located outside India held by the assessee in his name or in respect of which he is a beneficial owner. The first condition is that such asset is not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income or any other place of disclosure as provided under the Black Money Act, 2015 and secondly, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the recent precedent rendered by the Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of JCIT us Shri Akhilesh Singh, 2024 (7) TMI 130 (Annexure II) wherein under similar facts and circumstances where taxes were paid abroad and the assessee was eligible for credit of such taxes in terms of India Singapore DTAA, the Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the additions made under section 10(3) by observing as follows: "24. In the instant case, the alleged addition has been made towards undisclosed assets in the form of funds remitted from India to Singapore in the Bank account held with SBI, Singapore in the name of RBGPL. Admittedly, the assessee is a Director and shareholder of RBGPL. Various documentary evidences have been placed in the paper book, which are more than sufficient to prove that RBGPL is a registered company in Singapore and is regularly assessed to tax and filing the audited financial statement with the authority at Singapore. Secondly it is also an admitted fact that the assessee being a Director has been receiving salary from RBGPL and is regularly filing the income tax return at Singapore and is paying due taxes. The ld. Assessing Officer has taken note of this fact and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovisions along with section 3 of the Black Money Act, 2015 would reveal that the undisclosed foreign income and asset of an year are to be assessed together and further as per the proviso to section 3, undisclosed assets located outside India shall be charged to tax on its value in the previous year in which such assets come to the notice of the AO. The collective reading of all the provisions would give an inference that the undisclosed foreign income and asset are to be assessed by the AO under the Black Money Act, 2015 in the year in which it has come to the knowledge of the AO. Admittedly, there was no undisclosed asset of the assessee in the foreign country. Regarding the dividend income earned on the NRF fund, the plea of the Ld. AR of the assessee is that the same would not fall in the definition of income as the assessee had invested in a fund, wherein, the dividend, if any, earned on such fund would automatically form part of the fund and was not separately taxable. Further, the assessment year 2016-17 was the first year when the Black Money Act, 2015 came into force. The foreign income earned by the assessee was taxable, otherwise, in that country.. However, the tax on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the Black Money Act, 2015 and secondly, the assessee is unable to offer any explanation about the source of investment in such asset or the explanation given by him is unsatisfactory in the opinion of ld. AO. 14. Now, so far as explanation about the source of alleged investment, in the case under consideration is concerned, we find that the assessee has successfully explained the source of investment which is undoubtedly from the income earned outside India, part of which was paid by the assessee in the capacity of a non-resident Indian and the remaining part being paid by assessee's father who is also a non-resident Indian from his sources of income/asset located outside India. There is no iota of evidence bring forth by the Revenue authorities which could indicate that any element of the alleged investment in foreign asset is from so-called black money earned in India. Complete details of the bank account along with date of payment of the premium of the insurance policy supports this fact that the assessee has successfully explained the source of investment in the alleged foreign asset in the form of investment in insurance policy. " 8. The Ld. DR argued and sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained income of the appellant. This undisclosed income was then converted into a foreign asset by way of investment in the shares of Baxter International Inc. The impugned shares of Baxter International Inc were thus foreign assets acquired from income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act 1961, which had not been disclosed, and these assets were liable for disclosure under Chapter-VI of the BMA. However, no such disclosure was made by the appellant. The provisions of the law are very clear that once, no disclosure has been made under Chapter-VI of BMA during the period when the compliance window was open from 01.07.2015 to 30.09.2015, as per the provisions of section 72(c) of BMA such assets would be deemed to have been acquired in the year in which it comes to the notice of the AO and provisions of the Act would apply accordingly. The CBDT Circular no. 13 of 2015 dated 07.07.2015 amply clarifies this and the relevant extract of the said circular is reproduced as under: Question No.14: What are the consequences if no declaration under Chapter VI of the Act is made in respect of undisclosed foreign assets acquired prior to the commencement of the Act? Answer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Act shall apply accordingly. 12.4 Thus the CBDT circular makes the provisions of the law very clear. In the present case, it can be seen that the foreign asset has been acquired from the dividend income on which taxes have not been paid as per the Income Tax Act 1961. Thus, the foreign assets being shares of Baxter International Inc have been acquired from income which was chargeable under the Income Tax Act but was not disclosed in the ITR furnished under the Income Tax Act. Thus, these assets were required to be declared under Chapter-VI of BМА, which was not done by the appellant. Accordingly, as provided for in section 72(c) of BMA, it is held that the AO has rightly proceeded in charging these undisclosed foreign assets u/s 3(1) of BMA in the year in which these undisclosed foreign assets came to the notice of the AO, The action of the AO is accordingly upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed." 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record, and examined the statutory provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 ("BMA Act"), along with the ....