BOOSAM KIRAN KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) -2,FAIU, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

BMA 1/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 October 2026AY 2022-202310 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assessing the foreign income declared in the updated return. The AO issued a summons under Section 131(1A) of the Block Money Act on January 11, 2023, which was specifically for Assessment Year 2021-22 and pertained to bank accounts. Crucially, no summons was issued for the impugned Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee subsequently filed an updated return under Section 139(8A) on June 15, 2023, disclosing the foreign income. The Tribunal reasoned that as per Section 139(8A), an updated return cannot be filed if the AO has information about the assessee under the Block Money Act and has communicated it to the assessee prior to the filing of the updated return. Since the summons issued was for a different assessment year and did not communicate any undisclosed foreign income or asset for AY 2022-23, the condition for disallowing the updated return was not met. Therefore, the updated return filed by the assessee was valid. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleted the addition of Rs. 17,01,720 made by the AO towards undisclosed foreign income.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Boosam Kiran Kumar, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee initially filed a return of income on July 16, 2022, declaring Rs. 62,22,467. Subsequently, on June 15, 2023, an updated return was filed under Section 139(8A) of the Income Tax Act, declaring Rs. 78,14,880, which included foreign capital gains and dividend income. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under the Block Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The AO rejected the updated return, deeming the foreign income as undisclosed, and made an addition of Rs. 17,01,720 under Section 10(3) of the Block Money Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing an order without jurisdiction over the assessee, under the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing an order without taking proper sanction, under the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the authorities below were justified in not accepting the updated return of income filed by the assessee under Section 139(8A) of the Act, admitting total income for AY 2022-23? 4. Whether the authorities below were justified in making an addition of Rs. 17,01,720 as undisclosed foreign income, even when the assessee had included the amount in the updated return filed under Section 139(8A) of the Act? Assessee's Contentions: - The AO and CIT(A) erred in assessing foreign income declared in the updated return filed under Section 139(8A) before the AO issued notice under the Block Money Act. - The summons issued under Section 131(1A) on January 11, 2023, was for AY 2021-22, not AY 2022-23. Therefore, the AO's primary contention that the updated return was filed after receiving departmental communication is incorrect. - As per Section 139(8A), if an updated return is filed before any communication regarding foreign income or assets, it cannot be considered undisclosed foreign income. Revenue's Contentions: - The AO correctly rejected the updated return because the assessee filed it after receiving information regarding undisclosed foreign assets from the department. - The CIT(A) rightly upheld the addition, considering the provisions of Section 4(1A) of the Block Money Act, which states that income from a source outside India not disclosed within the time allowed under Section 139(1), 139(4), or 139(5) constitutes undisclosed foreign income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(8A),Section 10(3),Section 131(1A),Section 4(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G

PER MANJUNATHA. G, AM:

This Block Money appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the BMA 1/HYD/2026 BOOSAM KIRAN KUMAR

Ld.CIT(A)”] Hyderabad-11, dated 12.01.2026, and pertains to assessment year 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of ap

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(8A)

All 62 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(8A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →