Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 30.04.2025\nORDER\nPer Bench:\n1. These appeals and cross-objections from part of batch of matters\nwhich were heard together. The present appeals and cross-\nobjections arise from six separate orders of National Faceless\nAppeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the\n`CIT(A)'], passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'], whereby the Ld.\n2\nITA No. 5309, 5311, 5138, 5137, 5503, 5502/Mum/2024\nC.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024\n Assessment Year 1997-1998, 2001-2002 & 2008-2009\nCIT(A) had granted relief in appeal preferred by the Assessee\nagainst the assessment orders/penalty orders for the\n Assessment Years 1997-1998, 2001-2002 and 2008-2009.Since\nthe appeals arise from common factual matrix, the same are\nbeing disposed off by way of a common order.\n2. When the appeals/cross-objections were taken up for hearing\nnone was present on behalf of the Assessee. We have heard the\nLearned Departmental Representative and have perused the\nmaterial on record including the orders is passed by authorities\nbelow and documents/orders furnished by the\nLearned\nDepartmental Representative vide Letter, dated 03/03/2025, in\ncompliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal.\n3. On perusal of material on record following facts emerge:\n3.
The Assessee in the present case is the daughter of Mr. Jaswant\nSingh Yashpal (hereinafter referred to as `JSY'] and Mrs.\nBlodwen Yashpal. JSY was Person of Indian origin having British\nnationality. JSY worked as a pilot/flight engineer with the airlines\noutside India. After working with Kuwait Airlines for more than\n25 years, JSY retired in the year 1993 and decided to live in\nUnited Kingdom before returning to India in the year 2001. JSY\nexpired on 28/06/2017.\n3.
Mrs. Blodwen Yashpal (hereinafter referred to as `BSY'] is a\nBritish national was married to JSY. She was a housewife having\nno source of income. BSY is stated to be around 92 years of age.\n3.
The Assessee was cine artist resident in India and had been filing\nreturn of income in India on a regular basis. The Assessee is\nstated to be around 62 years of age.\n3.
It is admitted position that JSY had maintained a bank account\n3\nITA No. 5309, 5311, 5138, 5137, 5503, 5502/Mum/2024\nC.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024\n Assessment Year 1997-1998, 2001-2002 & 2008-2009\nwith HSBC, Geneva [hereinafter referred to as the 'Foreign\nBank Account']. The family has taken a consistent stand that\nname of BSY and the Assessee were included in the Foreign Bank\nAccount as second and third signatory, respectively, on account\nof administrative convenience on the basis of legal advice\nreceived. All the funds in the Foreign Bank Account were in the\nnature of salary income or savings of JSY and the interest\nincome accruing on the account balance or fixed deposits made.\nAs per the copy of sworn statement of Peter Douglas Eric Long,\nprincipal in the firm Porter & Co, Solicitors London United\nKingdom¹, JSY was advised by him [as was generally advised to\nother pilots]to set up joint accounts with their wife/children to\nensure that in case of untoward incident the family's would have\nimmediate access to funds since obtaining a probate take around\n3 to 4 months depending upon the value of the estate of the\ndeceased pilot. It is stated therein that when JSY returned to\nUnited Kingdom he was living off his capital arising from income\nJSY had earlier received from working for Kuwait Airways. It is\nalso stated that in September 1996 he acted for purchasing Flat\nNo. 44 Wildcroft Manor, Putney Heath, SW15 3TT) [hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Foreign Asset'] which was finally purchased\nin July, 1997 in the name of BSY and the Assessee. All the funds\nfor the purchase of the Foreign Asset came from JSY's saving in\nthe Foreign Bank Account. The Foreign Asset was, thereafter,\nsold in July 2007.\n3.
Reassessment proceedings were initiated in the case of JSY, BSY\nand Assessee for a number of assessment years within the time\nlimit of 16 years from the end of relevant previous year\nprescribed in Section 149(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer\n1\nPart of documents enclosed with Letter, dated 03/03/2025\n4\nITA No. 5309, 5311, 5138, 5137, 5503, 5502/Mum/2024\nC.O.No.260, 267,270, 272, 261, 269/Mum/2024\n Assessment Year 1997-1998, 2001-2002 & 2008-2009\nhad formed a belief that income liable to tax had escaped\nassessment since various credits in the Foreign Bank Account\nwere not offered to tax in India. The reassessment proceedings\nfor the various assessment years culminated into passing of the\nassessment orders under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act. Penalty\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied in respect of\nadditions made.\n3.
The present batch of appeals/Cross objections pertains to the\nfollowing assessment/re-assessment orders and penalty orders\npassed by the Assessing Officer:\n" }, "summary": { "facts": "The case involves reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee (Satya Kim Yashpal), her father (JSY), and mother (BSY) for certain assessment years. The reassessment was based on the belief that income liable to tax had escaped assessment due to credits in a foreign bank account not offered to tax in India. The assessee's father, JSY, was an Indian origin British national who worked abroad and later retired to the UK before returning to India. The foreign asset was purchased using JSY's savings from the foreign bank account.", "held": "The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had granted relief by deleting additions/penalty. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without following due procedure. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention regarding non-compliance with Rule 46A and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering additional evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the same income should not be taxed in the hands of two assessees.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "149(1)(c)", "143(3)", "147", "271(1)(c)", "250", "46A" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A and whether the same income can be taxed in the hands of multiple assessees." } }