Sonal Romy Mehta Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)
Assessees had filed appeals against the orders of CIT(A) NFAC, passed u/s 250 in proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA). As the facts were identical, a consolidated order was issued, with BMA No. 25/Mum/2025 treated as the lead case.
Assessees had initially raised several technical grounds—contending that (i) the information regarding the alleged foreign asset was obtained in 2013 (A.Y. 2014-15) when the BMA was not in force, (ii) the asset itself was not in existence either in A.Y. 2014-15 or A.Y. 2020-21, and (iii) jurisdictional assumptions under BMA were invalid since the same AO had previously acted under the Income-tax Act.
However, during the appellate proceedings, Assessees filed a written request dated 16.10.2025 seeking withdrawal of the appeals, explaining that:
The CIT(A) had already granted them full relief on merits, deleting the additions & holding that they were not beneficial owners of the alleged foreign asset.
No information had been received regarding any further appeal by the Department, leading the Assessees to presume that the CIT(A)’s order had been accepted.
Accordingly, they no longer wished to pursue their technical grounds before the Tribunal, while reserving liberty to contest the issues later if the Department were to file an appeal.
