DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUKESH D AMBANI, MUMBAI

ITA 5123/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 January 2025AY 2003-0434 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the 'Base Note' relied upon by the AO did not conclusively prove the existence of a separate undisclosed account. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of the alleged second account.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made on account of alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts and interest income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information suggesting the assessee was a beneficial owner of a foreign bank account not disclosed in the return.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in making additions based on an alleged undisclosed foreign bank account and interest income without sufficient evidence. Whether the 'Base Note' sufficiently proved the existence of a second account in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 149(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 21.01.2025Pronounced: 31.01.2025

PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the Revenue and corresponding six Cross Objections filed by the assessee are against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai, dated 02.08.2024 passed against the assessment order of DCIT-3(3)(1)/DCIT-Central Circle – 8(2), Mumb

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →