DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA KIM YASHPAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5309/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2025AY 1997-98Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions made to the assessee's income regarding foreign bank account transactions were not sustainable, especially when the source of funds was the father's savings and maturity of deposits. Consequently, penalties levied on these additions were also deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, daughter of a British national pilot, was included as a signatory on her father's foreign bank account for administrative convenience. Reassessment proceedings were initiated for multiple assessment years based on alleged escaped income from this account and a foreign asset purchased with the father's savings.

What were the issues?

Whether income from a foreign bank account and asset, funded by the father's savings, could be taxed as unexplained investment in the hands of the daughter. Whether penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were leviable when the underlying additions were deleted.

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 (7 matters)

ITA No.5311/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 …………. Appellant Vs. 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 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]…………. Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 41(1)(1), Mumbai Room No.828, 8th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra …………. Respondent

ITA No. 5309, 5311, 5138, 5137, 5503

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 →