DCIT 41.1.1, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, MUMB vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5138/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2025AY 2001-0227 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

For AY 1997-1998 (Quantum Appeal): The Tribunal held that the addition of INR 2,63,760/- (part of the total addition) was a protective assessment. Since the income was already offered to tax by the assessee's father and the addition was not a result of investigation, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was contrary to the law laid down in Lalji Haridas v. ITO. Therefore, the addition was deleted. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was respectfully followed. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. For AY 2001-2002 (Quantum Appeal): The Tribunal observed that the credits in the foreign bank account were 'Fiduciary Deposit Repayments', supporting the assessee's stand that these were maturity proceeds of deposits made from her father's earnings. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the addition of INR 96,80,005/- could not be sustained, albeit for different reasons. The assessee's cross-objections were allowed, and the CIT(A)'s order was confirmed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2001-2002 (Penalty Appeal): Since the quantum addition was confirmed to be deleted, the penalty levied in respect of it could not be sustained. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 1997-1998 (Penalty Appeal): The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. For AY 2008-2009 (Quantum and Penalty Appeals): The appeals were partly allowed. The specific findings and reasoning for this partial allowance are not detailed in the provided extract.

What were the facts?

The appeals and cross-objections concern assessment years 1997-1998, 2001-2002, and 2008-2009. The assessee, Satya Kim Yashpal, is the daughter of JSY and BSY. JSY, a British national, worked as a pilot outside India and retired in 1993. The family maintained a foreign bank account with HSBC, Geneva, where BSY and the assessee were signatories for administrative convenience. JSY's funds in this account were from his salary and savings. Reassessment proceedings were initiated against JSY, BSY, and the assessee under Section 149(1)(c) of the Act, alleging escaped income due to credits in the foreign bank account. These culminated in assessment and penalty orders under Sections 143(3)/147 and 271(1)(c) respectively. The CIT(A) granted relief by deleting additions/penalties, leading to appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal by deleting the reassessment addition of INR 81,89,072/- for AY 1997-1998, thereby not appreciating the facts and law? (Assessee's contention: The addition was a protective assessment, and since the income was already offered to tax by the assessee's father, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was contrary to law as laid down in Lalji Haridas v. ITO. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of INR 97,48,887/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 1997-1998? (Assessee's contention: Since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty cannot be sustained. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the reassessment addition of INR 96,80,005/- for AY 2001-2002? (Assessee's contention: The credits were 'Fiduciary Deposit Repayments' from deposits made from father's earnings, and thus not unexplained investment in her hands. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of INR 1,01,42,250/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2001-2002? (Assessee's contention: Since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty cannot be sustained. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the reassessment additions of INR 41,11,702/- (LTCG) and INR 13,97,387/- (Interest) for AY 2008-2009? (Assessee's contention: Not recorded. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of INR 40,53,510/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2008-2009? (Assessee's contention: Since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty cannot be sustained. Revenue's contention: Not recorded).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 149(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Heard together (10 matters)

ITA No. 5309/MUM/2024
ITA No.5311/MUM/2024
ITA No.5502/MUM/2024
ITA No.5138/MUM/2024
ITA No.5137/MUM/2024
C.O.No.260/MUM/2024
C.O.No.267/MUM/2024
C.O. No. 272/MUM/2024
C.O.No.261/MUM/2024
C.O. No.269/MUM/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 1997-1998 Assessment Year:1997-1998 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 & Assessment Year: 2001-2002 Assessment Year: 2001-2002 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 41(1)(1), Mumbai Room No.828, 8th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex,Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra Vs. Appellant Satya Kim Yashpal 101 Palm Beach Building, Gandhigram Road, Juhu, Mumbai – 400049, Maharashtra. [PAN:AAFPY8166N] Respondent C.O.No.260/MUM/2024 & C.O.No.267/MUM/2024

Assessment Year: 1997-1998 C.O. No. 272/MUM/2024

Assessment Year: 2008-2009 C.O.No.261/MUM/2024 & C.O. No.269/MUM/2024

Assessment Year: 2001-2002

Assessment Year: 2001-2002 Satya Kim Yashpal 101 Palm Beach Building, Gandhigram Road, Juhu, Mumbai – 400049, Maharashtra. [PAN:AAFPY8166N] Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra Respondent ITA No.5503/MU

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 149(1)(c)

All 35 judgments and leading authorities on Section 149(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →