Krishore Kumar Rajagopal Vs DDIT/ADIT (ITAT Chennai)
The appeals were filed by the assessee against three orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-18, all dated 18.08.2025, passed under Section 15 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA) for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2018-19. Since identical grounds were involved, the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a consolidated order. The Tribunal decided BMA No.16/CHNY/2025, with its findings applying mutatis mutandis to BMA Nos.17 and 18/CHNY/2025.
The assessee also raised an additional ground contending that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to levy the penalty. However, the Tribunal ultimately left this legal ground open after deciding the matter on merits.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the penalty levied under Section 43 of the BMA for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA of the return of income was sustainable.
The assessee, an individual employed overseas with Vedanta Limited, had been granted ESOPs of the foreign parent company, Vedanta Resources PLC (UK). The shares were administered through a fiduciary arrangement involving Sanne Fiduciary Services Limited, Jersey. While filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 22.02.2018, the assessee failed to disclose these foreign assets in Schedule FA. Consequently, penalty proceedings under Section 43 of the BMA were initiated, resulting in a penalty of ₹10,00,000, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
