ITO-19.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEELA MADHAV APTE, MUMBAI

ITA 3079/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2025Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(1), Mumbai Vs Sheela Madhav Apte, Mumbai 25A, Woodland Apartment G. Deshmukh Marg Peddar Road Cumballa Hill S.O. Maharashtra - 400026 [PAN: ADBPA4847R] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Nikhil Rungta, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/07/2025 घोषणा1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee received the shares of St. Ives International Limited as a gift from his brother, without any consideration. Since the assets were fully explained and no investment was made by the assessee, they were not considered undisclosed foreign assets. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 4,99,60,268/-. The addition was made by the AO for undisclosed foreign assets, specifically shares in St. Ives International Ltd., which the assessee allegedly failed to disclose in their income tax returns and declare under the Black Money Act.

What were the issues?

Whether shares of St. Ives International Limited received as a gift from a non-resident brother without consideration constitute an undisclosed foreign asset under the Black Money Act and are taxable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(11),Section 3(1)(c)(u),Section 3(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Rungta, Advocate
Hearing: 16/07/2025Pronounced: 22/07/2025

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-51, Mumbai [hereinafter ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 26/03/2024 pertaining to AY 2019-20. 2. The grievance of the revenue reads as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIMA) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,99,60,268/- made by the AO as undisclosed Foreign Asset as per the Black Money/UFIA) and imposition of Tax Act, 2015, without considering the facts that the asse

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 2(11)

All 104 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(11) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →