DCIT Vs Anil Dhirajlal Ambani (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that additions made on substantive and protective basis merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits are unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Facts- The assessee filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs.7,11,89,070/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, reasons were recorded and notice u/s. 148 was issued. The assessment was thereafter completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. AO, relying upon the report of the Addl. DGIT (Investigation), concluded that certain bank accounts existed in the name of “Canbar Holdings Corporation” with HSBC Bank, Geneva, having a peak balance of US$ 55,44,646.99 in November 2005. The account was stated to have been opened in 2001 and closed in 2006. It was further reported that one Mr. M.K. Shetty was the attorney holder of this account, and that the account was held for the benefit of Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani. Upon his demise on 06/07/2002, his legal heirs, Shri Anil D. Ambani and Shri Mukesh D. Ambani became entitled to the beneficial interest.
AO rejected the explanation and proceeded to treat the assessee, his brother Shri Mukesh D. Ambani, and his late father as joint beneficial owners, thereby adding 1/3rd of the alleged amounts substantively and the remaining 2/3rd protectively.
