DCIT Vs Shriti Verma (ITAT Delhi)
The Revenue filed four appeals for assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 challenging the CIT(A)’s orders deleting protective additions made under section 153A read with section 143(3). The lead appeal concerned a protective addition of ₹45,17,24,929, which the Assessing Officer had added on the basis that the assessee and her mother were beneficial owners of two bank accounts of Master Expert Investment Ltd. with Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., Singapore. The Assessing Officer had stated that substantive additions would be made under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, but as a precaution, a protective addition was made under the Income-tax Act.
During the search on 17.12.2015 and subsequent assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer concluded that deposits and securities in the foreign bank accounts belonged to the assessee and her mother. He relied on passport copies and electricity bills attached with the account opening forms. The addition represented 50% of total deposits and securities in the two accounts.
The assessee challenged the additions before the CIT(A), raising several objections. She argued that she consistently denied any knowledge or ownership of the foreign accounts and that the Assessing Officer had not furnished the documents forming the basis of the adverse conclusions. The assessee claimed that the proceedings were initiated based on borrowed satisfaction, violating natural justice, as essential material was not provided despite repeated requests.
