DCIT Vs Ganpat Singhvi (ITAT Mumbai)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the only issue raised in the grounds of appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.5,30,92,953/- by Ld. CIT(A). The Hon’ble Tribunal uphold the observations of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it was observed that in order to assess the asset/bank account held by a third party in the hands of the respondent assessee the department has to prove that the assessee has direct beneficial interest in the asset/bank account held by third party.
Facts: In present facts of the case, the Respondent is an individual residing in Abu Dhabi, UAE since 1976. During FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), the respondent resided in India for a period of 45 days which does not exceed the maximum threshold limit specified in Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and accordingly, the respondent was non-resident for AY 2006-07.
According to the information received by the Govt. of India from French Govt. under DTTA in exercise of sovereign powers that some Indian residents and national have foreign bank accounts in HSBC Private Bank(Suisse) SA, Geneva. In the case of assessee also, a base note was received from the office of DIT(Inv)-II, Mumbai mentioning that assessee has bank accounts in HSBC Geneva. The respondent assessee had opened a joint account along with his brother in HSBC Geneva in 1998 and had transferred funds since 1998 to this account from his other account in HSBC Abu Dhabi, UAE. The source of the funds transferred from HSBC Abu Dhabi, UAE were stated to be out of the income earned in Abu Dhabi and savings made by the respondent assessee during his stay in Abu Dhabi, UAE as a non-resident Indian since 1976. The funds transferred from HSBC Abu Dhabi according to the respondent assessee to HSBC, Geneva had no source or income accruing or arising from India. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.10.2014 after recording reasons to believe u/s 148(2) of the Act which were duly supplied to the assessee with notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO noted in the reasons to believe that information had been received pertaining to respondent assessee having a bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva bearing number BUP_SIFIC_PER_ID-5090154065 and the peak balance in such account was USD 1,194,388. The AO also supplied a copy of base note received from French Authorities under Indo-French Fiscal Treaty to the respondent assessee. As per base note copy, there were two accounts with HSBC Geneva. The first account bearing number 5094029263 is in the name of Blueridge Investment Corporation which was incorporated in Liberia having a peak balance of USD 1,184,851 in February 2006 and the other account bearing no 5094495795 was in the joint names of the respondent assessee and his brother Devendra Singhvi having a peak balance of USD 9,537 in November 2005.
Finally, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2015 by making an addition of Rs. 5,30,92,953/- to the income of the assessee equal to peak balance in both the bank accounts. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts and the remand report admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A held that in order to assess the asset/bank account held by a third party in the hands of the respondent assessee the department has to prove that the assessee has direct beneficial interest in the asset/bank account held by third party (i.e. Blueridge Investment Corporation). The ld CIT(A) observed that the department has failed to bring any evidences on record to show that the respondent is having any beneficial interest in the company i.e. Blueridge Investment Corporation or the bank account held by the company with HSBC Geneva. On the contrary the respondent filed three independent/third party evidences to show that he has no beneficial interest either direct or indirect in the company namely Blueridge Investment Corporation or the bank account held by the company held with HSBC Geneva.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of the Revenue observed that the Order passed by Ld CIT(A) was after admitting the additional evidences and after considering remand report of the AO on the additional evidences held that in order to assess the asset/bank account held by a third party in the hands of the respondent assessee the department has to prove that the assessee has direct beneficial interest in the asset/bank account held by third party (i.e. Blueridge Investment Corporation). The ld CIT(A) observed that the department has failed to bring any evidences on record to show that the respondent is having any beneficial interest in the company i.e. Blueridge Investment Corporation or the bank account held by the company with HSBC Geneva.
It was further observed that the assessee is not beneficial owner of the bank account held by Blueridge Investment Corporation with HSBC Geneva. Similarly, as regards the joint account of the assessee with his brother in HSBC Geneva , the ld CIT(A) recorded a finding on the basis of evidences that money was transferred in the bank account out of the income earned in Abu Dhabi and savings made by the respondent assessee during his stay in Abu Dhabi, UAE as a non-resident Indian since 1976.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
O R D E R
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 12.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2006-07.
2. The only issue raised in the grounds of appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.5,30,92,953/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of peak balance during the year in two bank accounts with HSBC Private Bank(Suisse) SA, Geneva.
3. The facts in brief are that the Respondent is an individual residing in Abu Dhabi, UAE since 1976. The Respondent is a Chartered Accountant, working with Al Nasser Holdings as Group Advisor & Director (formerly as Managing Director). During FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), the respondent resided in India for a period of 45 days which does not exceed the maximum threshold limit specified in Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and accordingly, the respondent was non-resident for AY 2006-07. Details of stay in India prior to FY 2005-06 and subsequent to FY 2005-06 as per the passport are as under:-
