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

2. Information available shows that a letter dated 08.08.2011, was submitted by AR Shri Rajesh Chaturvedi, CA before DGIT(INV), Mumbal stating that late Shri Dhirubhai irachand Ambani had opened foreign bank account with HSBC Private Bank, Geneva in the year 2000/2001. The record also shows a letter dated 25/07/2011 by Shri MK Shetty addressed to Dear Mukesh& Anil' stating inter alia that sometime during 2000 Shri. Dhirubhai had instructed Mr Shetty to set up a separate bank account in the sum approximately of US $ Five Million, of which Mr Shetty would be single authorized signatory and would operate according to ‘his’ i.e. Shri Dhirubhai's instructions. The letter continues to state that following his conversation with Shri Dhirubhai, Mr Shetty arranged one bank account to be opened in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation with HSBC, bearing number 1327690. Mr Shetty also mentions that Shri Dhirubhal's instruction to Mr Shetty were to keep all facts strictly confidential between him and Mr Shetty and to utilize the funds in this account as he (Shri Dhirubhai) directed.

3. However, as per copy of the 'Base Note' available with this office, of Shri. Mukesh D. Ambani (BUP ID 5090160984) it is clear that there are two bank accounts in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation namely BUP ID 5090260976 and BUP ID 5091327690. Assessee the beneficial owner of HSBC Bank Foreign Account having Client / Profile (BUP ID 090260976) held in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation. The previous year relating to the AY 2001-02 covers the period from 01/04/2000 to 31/03/2001. Thus, during the A.Y 2001-02, the assessee held foreign bank account which is an asset located outside India as provided for in proviso 2 to sec. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration reveals that the assessee had not disclosed said foreign bank account in his return of income. The initial deposits made to open the bank account or thereafter in the relevant previous year along with income generated due to being the beneficial owner of such foreign bank account should have been disclosed in the said return of income for AY 2001-02, which has not been done by the assessee. As per available information a deposit of USD 1,00,000 (Approx) is to be made to open such an account and cost of about USD 300 per year would be incurred, which information and the sources thereof have not been disclosed by the assessee in the said return of income. These disclosures in respect of above stated information have not been made in the return of 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 Income filed for AY 2001-02 by the assessee. In the context of deposit mentioned above it may be stated that as per information available Shri M K Shetty in his letter dated 25/07/2011 had mentioned that a separate account in the name Carbar Holding Corporation (BUP ID 5091327690) was opened with sum approximately of USD 5 Million on 27/06/2001.

4. On perusal of copy of the Base Note of Shri. Mukesh D. Ambani having BUP ID 5090160984, it is seen that the narration of people related to customer profile includes following:- 1) Flag Telecom Grp Ltd (BUP ID 5090281031) and; 2) First Corporate Director Inc. (BUP ID 5090248786) of which relevant customer profile is Canbar Holdings Corporations (BUP ID 5091327690). Both these entities are located outside India. It follows that the assessee has links with and/or interests in these two foreign entities as well. As per the provisions of proviso 2 to See 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961, these are covered as asset including financial interest in any entity located outside India. The assessee has neither disclosed these assets located outside India nor Income therefrom in the return of income filed for AY 2001-02.

5. Thus, the case satisfies the conditions of provise, 2 of sec. 147 and provisions of clause (d) of Explanation 2 to Sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to sax has escaped assessment in this case for AY 2001-02. Therefore, the assessment needs to be reopened in order to bring to tax income which has escaped assessment. In view of the facts narrated supra, the conditions of sec. 149(1)(c) pertaining to time limit for issue of notice are also satisfied in this case for AY 2001-02.

3.1. As per reasons to believe extracted above, on the basis of the aforesaid letter of Mr. M.K. Shetty and a 'Base Note' of assessee as available with the ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Base Note'), it was found that there were two bank accounts in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation (CHC) having BUP ID 5090260976 and BUP ID 5091327690 (even though, as per base note, 5091327690' is not BUP ID but it is client profile code), held in the name of CHC. According to ld. Assessing Officer, a deposit of USD 1,00,000 (approx.) is to be made to open such an account and cost of about USD 300 per year is incurred for maintenance. It was further observed from the Base Note of the assessee that customer profiles of Flag Telecom Grp Ltd ("Flag Telecom") and First Corporate Director Inc. ("FCDI") were 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 related to the assessee. Since, the assessee did not disclose these bank accounts in his return of income for AY 2001-02, income therefrom escaped assessment.

3.2. Assessee objected to the re-opening of the assessment, vide letter dated 06.08.2018, on the following grounds: a) Assessee did not hold any bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva, in his name. b) Assessee was not aware of any understanding between his deceased father and Mr. M.K Shetty c) Copy of Base Note, its source and authenticity were not provided by the ld. Assessing Officer d) In order to avoid undue adverse publicity of the deceased, Shri Dhirubhai H Ambani (Shri DHA), legal heirs (i.e. the assessee and his brother Shri Anil D. Ambani) voluntarily paid taxes together with interest for the peak balance in bank account, with ID 50913 27690 in HSBC Bank, in AY 2006-07. Assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was duly completed for the said assessment year 2006- 07, wherein peak balance was taxed e) HSBC Bank, Geneva, vide its letter dated 30.06.2011, confirmed that the assessee did not have any account or beneficial interest in any account with HSBC Bank, Geneva. Copy of this letter was furnished before the ld. Assessing Officer f) As per international banking practice, every entity is required to have a personal ID which would be BUP ID which is similar to the 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 practice by Indian Banks which have Customer Relationship Number (CRN). The BUP ID 50902 60976 is a personal ID and other ID 50913 27690 is the ID of the Bank account g) The information about the initial deposit and annual expenditure requirement for account maintenance, is mere a conjecture and surmise (Assessee also requested to provide such a source of information) h) There is no documentary evidence that the bank account was opened in financial year relevant to assessment year 2001-02 3.3. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the reassessment proceedings by issuing a disposal order on 22nd November 2018, rejecting the objections to reopening of assessment. He then, proceeded to assess alleged initial deposit of USD 100,000 and USD 300 for alleged maintenance expenses u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money for the captioned assessment year, in respect of bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva, in the name of CHC, having BUP ID 5090260976, on alleged ground that the legal heirs failed to discharge their onus and it is proved that the legal heirs were beneficial owners of the said bank account. Ld. Assessing Officer further alleged that assessee failed to discharge his onus either by submitting the complete bank statement or the Consent Waiver Form, thus, it is proved that he was beneficial owner of undisclosed foreign bank accounts, having BUP ID 5090260976, Client and Profile No. 5091327090. He further, stated that initial deposit of USD 100,000 was required to open an account and cost of USD 300 would be incurred per year for maintenance.

5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 3.4. Ld. Assessing Officer presumed share of interest in the bank accounts in question as equal amongst Late Shri DHA and the two legal heirs. Accordingly, he considered one third proportion to assess income in respect of the said bank accounts, in the year under consideration. Accordingly, he made additions u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money for the captioned Assessment Year, to the total income of the assessee, as under: Sr Particulars Reference Substantive Protective .N Amount Additions Additions o. Assessee’s share Others’ share (1/3rd ) (2/3rd) For the bank account with allèged BUP ID 50902 60976

2. Initial USD 100,000 USD 33,333 USD 66,667 Deposit (Rs. 46,64,000) (Rs. 15,54,667) (Rs. 31,09,333) USD 33,433 USD 66,867 (Rs.15,59,331/-) (Rs.31,18,661/-)

3.5. As can be seen in para 16 to 19 of the impugned assessment order, ld. Assessing Officer has held that the alleged initial deposit of USD 100,000 and annual expenses of USD 300 is assessable amongst the assessee, his deceased father and assessee's brother in equal proportion. While making substantive additions, ld. Assessing Office held that since the assessee did not discharge onus of explaining exact share as beneficial owner of the bank accounts in question, and that since no bank statement was furnished or even no consent waiver form was signed, in order to protect interest of revenue, the balance 2/3 of the above amounts is also assessed in the hands of the assessee on 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 protective basis as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer presumed equal share of interest amongst Late Shri. DHA and the legal heirs. Accordingly, 1/3 of the interest on the deposit for A/c No. 5091327690 and maintenance charges for both the alleged bank accounts, i.e., one with BUP ID 5090260976 and another being client profile no. 5091327690, has been assessed in the hands of the assessee substantively. However, the balance 2/3 share for the legal heirs have also been assessed in the hands of the assessee protectively. In the case of both the legal heirs also 1/3 amount is taxed on substantive basis and balance 2/3 amount is taxed on protective basis. Thus, the same amount is taxed three times. Details of computation made by assessee along with similar nature of addition made in all the six years are reproduced below:

3.6. It is an undisputed fact that assessment of Late Shri DHA, for AY 2006-07, was reopened for bringing to tax, the peak balance for bank account bearing No. 5091327690. The said peak balance was not only offered to tax but also assessed as income by the ld. Assessing Officer in Assessment Year 2006-07. For this assessment, reasons recorded for reopening of assessment in case of Late Shri. DHA recorded by ACIT 3(3) on 23.11.2011 are worth taking note. The same reads an under:

Information has been received regarding existence of a bank account in the name of Canabar Holdings Corporation in HSBC Bank, Gamevast- 50813270902 This account has a peak balance of USD 55,44,646.99 as on November 2005. One Mr. M.K. Shetty resident of London is the Attorney Holder of that account and Mr. Mukesh D. Ambani and Mr. Anil D. Ambani are shown to be beneficiaries of the account. It has also been stated that Mr. M.K. Shetty has set up this account for the benefit of Late Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani in the year 2000-01. After the death of Mr. Dhirubhai H. Ambani the names of his two sons Mr. Mukesh D. Ambani and Mr. Anil D. Ambani have been included as beneficiaries. As such it appears, that Mr. Dhirubhai Ambani was the beneficiary and the balance in the said account has devolved on his two legal heirs Mr. Mukesh D. Ambani and Mr. Anil D. Ambani. It is also seen from the information forwarded to me that vide letter dated 30th June 2011, HSBC PVL Bank, Geneva has informed Mr. Mukesh D. Ambani that “we can confirm that neither at the time of data theft nor today, you or RIL have been or are the holder or from our records, the beneficial owner of any account with our book in Switzerland

3.7. It is important to note that Base Note referred by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of making addition in all the three cases, viz. Late shri DHA, the assessee and Shri Anil D. Ambani is the same. It is from this common document that additions have been made in the 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 hands of all the three assessees, part of it as substantive and part of it as protective.

4. Issue in the present set of appeals before us had already come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of deceased father of the assessee, Late Shri Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani in appeals for the same six Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2006-07, filed by the Revenue vide 4331 and 4345 to 4348/Mum/2024 and Cross Objections by Late Shri DHA vide CO Nos. 215 to 220/Mum/2024, consolidated order pronounced on 09.01.2025. Facts and circumstances as well as the basis for the purpose of making additions by the ld. Assessing Officer are identical to the present case which have been elaborately dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench covering all the aspects of the case. In this decision, Coordinate Bench has extensively and elaborately explained the aspects of BUP ID and Bank Account No. as reflected in the Base Note so as to read the same in proper perspective and brought clarity on the manner ld. Assessing Officer has inferred the same. Having gone through this decision on which there is nothing more to add to and re-invent the wheel, in our considered view, present case in hand before us is squarely covered by the said it.

4.1. Facts, observations and findings, all three contained in this order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Late Shri DHA are reproduced for ease of reference so as to avoid any kind of duplicity.

“The revenue has filed appeal against the orders of Ld. CIT(A)-50, Mumbai passed under Section 250 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2006- 07. The assessee has filed Cross Objection in all the 6 years of appeals filed by the revenue. Since, identical issue on similar facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience all these appeals are adjudicated by taking for AY 2001-02 and Cross Objection No. 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 215/Mum/2024 as lead case and its finding will be applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals wherever it is applicable. AY: 2001-02

2. The grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are as under:-

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the substantive and protective additions made on account of initial deposit made by the assessee in the foreign bank account having BUP ID 5090260976 maintained in HSBC Bank, Geneva and maintenance cost incurred on such bank account by disregarding the fact that the foreign bank account was not disclosed in his Return of Income?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not considering the BUP ID as account number, by placing reliance on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Kumar Rasiklal Mehta [2022] IΤΑ No. 438 to 442/Mum/2022; however in the case of Kumar Rasiklal (supra), the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai had not deliberated on whether BUP ID is to be considered as a separate bank account number or not.

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the substantive and protective addition made on account of initial deposit made by the assessee in the foreign bank account having BUP ID 5090260976 maintained in HSBC Bank, Geneva, by disregarding the fact that the assessee had refused to give consent to the HSBC Bank, Geneva in favour of the department, so that necessary record could be received from the HSBC Bank and the necessary additions would have been made in the hand of the assessee and his legal heir.

4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." 3. Fact in brief is that original return of income declaring total income of Rs.517,40,430/- was filed on 30.07.2001. Subsequently, the case was reopened for assessment u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23.03.2018. The reason recorded for reopening the case are reproduced below: “The assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y.2002-03 on 29.07.2002 declaring total income of Rs.8,99,65,840 as an individual resident in India. The said return thus duly processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.02.2003. As per this return of income for AY 2002-03, the receipts of income was from Salary, Income from House Property, Short Term Capital Gains, Long Term Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources. No scrutiny proceedings were initiated for this particular AY under any section of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.Information available shows that a letter dated 08.08.2011, was submitted by AR Shri Rajesh Chaturvedi, CA (of both Shri Mukesh D. Ambani and Shri Anil D. Ambani) before DGIT(INV), Mumbai stating that Late Shri Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani instructed opening of foreign bank account with HSBC Private Bank, Geneva in the year 2000/2001. The record also shows a letter dated 25.07.2011 by Shri M K Shetty addressed to 'Dear Mukesh& Anil' stating inter alia that sometime during 2000 Shri Dhirubhai had instructed Mr Shetty to set up a separate bank account in the sum approximately of USS Five Million of which Mr. Shetty would be single, authorized signatory and would operate according to 'his' i.e. Shri Dhirubhai's instructions. The letter continues to state that following his conversation with Shri Dhirubhai, Mr. Shetty arranged one bank account to be opened in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation with HSBC, bearing No. 1327690. Mr Shetty also mentions that Shri Dhirubhai's instruction to Mr. Shetty were to keep all facts strictly confidential between him and Mr.Shetty and to utilize the funds in this account as he (Shri Dhirubhai) directed.

4. On perusal of copy of the Base Note of Shri. Mukesh D. Ambani having BUP ID 5090160984 and Shri Anil D. Ambani having BUP ID 5090160983, it has also observed that the narration of people related to customer profile includes following:- 1) Flag Telecom Grp Ltd (BUP ID 5090281031) and; 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 2) First Corporate Director Inc. (BUP ID 5090248786) of which relevant customer profile is Canbar Holdings Corporations (BUP ID 5091327690).

Both these entities are located outside India. It follows that the assessee has links with and/or interests in these two foreign entities as well. As per the provisions of proviso 2 to Sec 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961, these are covered as asset including financial interest in any entity located outside India. The assessee has neither disclosed these assets located outside India nor Income therefrom in the return of income filed for AY 2001-02.

5. Thus, the case satisfies the conditions of proviso 2 of sec. 147 and provisions of clause (d) of Explanation 2 to Sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in this case for AY 2001-02. Therefore, the assessment needs to be reopened in order to bring to tax income which has escaped assessment. In view of the facts narrated supra, the conditions of sec. 149(1)(c) pertaining to time limit for issue of notice are also satisfied in this case for AY 2001-02". 3. The assessing officer stated that the assessee filed objection to the reopening the assessment and the same has been rejected vide order dated 22.11.2018. Subsequently, a show cause notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 19.12.2019 to the legal heirs of the assessee, the extract of the same is reproduced as under: “You are required to show cause as to why addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee with regards to the undisclosed foreign bank accounts as mentioned in the resons for reopening of the assessment provided to you, for the initial deposit of USD 1,00,000 required for opening each account and cost of USD 300 per year incurred for maintenance of each account”.

4.1 The AO also stated that Base Note provide details of BUP IDs of Mukesh H. Ambani& Anil H. Ambani, Flag Telegram Group Ltd. and Canbar Holdings Corporation. As per the details submitted by the authorized representative of the legal heirs of the assessee late Sh. Dhirubhai Hirachand Ambani had opened foreign bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva in the year 2000/2001. As per the information available, Mr. M K Shetty Attorny at London in his letter dated 25.7.2011 mentioned that an account in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation BUP ID 5091327690 was opened with sum approximately of USD 5 Million on 27.06.2001. Regarding existence of bank account in the name of Canbar Holding Corporation in HSBC Bank, Geneva (Client ID 5091327690), it is 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 stated that Shri M.K. Shetty resident of London was the attorney holder of this account which was opened on the instructions of late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani in the year 2000-01 and after the death of Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani the name of his two sons Shri Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani have been included as beneficiaries. This account was having peak balance of USD 55,44,646.99 as on November, 2005. The legal heirs of the the assessee had filed return of income on 09.08.2011 on behalf of the assessee i.e. Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani for financial year 2005-06 and declared peak balance of USD 55,44,646.99 as an income of Rs.24,73,46,660/- and had paid taxes of Rs.14,09,59,731/-.

4.2 However, the AO opined that assessee was also the beneficiary owner of HSBC bank foreign account having BUP ID 5090260976 in the name of Canbar Holding Corporation which was opened in the year 2000 and this account had not been disclosed by the legal heirs. The AO was of the view that initial deposit made to open the bank account along with the income generated should have been disclosed in the said return of income filed for the assessment year 2001- 02. The AO opined that as per available information in the public domain, a deposit of USD 1,00000 was to be made to open such an account and also USD 300 per year required to be incurred for maintaining such account. On query, the legal heirs of the assessee submitted that they had filed return of income on 09.08.2011 on behalf of the assessee i.e. Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani for financial year 2005-06 and declared an income of Rs.24,73,46,660/- and had paid taxes of Rs.14,09,59,731/-. The legal heirs had also submitted that there was only one account in the HSBC Bank Geneva linked to their father in the name of Canbar Holding Corporation a/c no. 5091327690. It is also submitted that legal heir had declared the aforesaid bank account and HSBC Bank Geneva in the hands of the late father Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani for the financial year 2005- 06 and offered to income in the hands of late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani. However, the AO stated that the assessee had not provided complete date wise details of transactions in the above mentioned account and also not offered any income in respect of the other account in the name of Canbar Holding Corporation having BUP ID 5090260976. The legal heir of the assessee had denied of any such BUP ID 5090260976 bank account maintained as alleged by the AO. However, the AO concluded that as per the Base Note available with his office, there were two bank account in the name of Canbar Holding Corporation namely, BUP ID 5090260976 and BUP ID 5091327690. The AO held that the a/c no. BUP ID 5090260976 was opened in the AY 2001-02, therefore, initial deposit of USD 1,00000 and maintenance charges of USD 300 on the basis of information available in the public domain were added to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. The AO also held that assessee along with his two sons were beneficial owner of this foreign account and accordingly 1/3 amount was added in the hands of 3 persons namely, Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, Shri, Mukesh Ambani and Shri Anil Ambani on substantial basis and the remaining 2/3 amount was added on protective basis in the hands of all the 3 assessee’s. The details of the same is as under:

5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 Sr. Particulars Reference amount Substantive Protective No. Additions Additions Deceased Assessee Legal Heir’s share Share (1/3rd) (2/3rd) For the bank account with alleged BUP ID 50902 60976 1. Initial Deposit USD 100,000 USD 33,333 USD 66,667 (Rs.46,64,000) (Rs.15,54,667) (Rs.31,09,333) 2. Maintenance USD 300 USD 100 USD 200 Charges (Rs.13,992) (Rs.4,664) (Rs.9,328) Total Addition USD 33,433 USD 66,867 (Rs.15,59,331) (Rs.31,18,661)

5. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant extract of the decision of CIT(A) is as under: “7.1 I have considered the Assessment order, submission of the appellant and facts available on record. The AO has made additions in respect of the BUP ID 5090260976 by holding that it is separate account which was opened in FY 2000- 2001 and the same is not reflected in the letter of Mr. M.K Shetty. On the basis of information claimed to have been available with the AO, it was held that an initial deposit of USD 100,000 was required to be made to open an account with HSBC Bank, Geneva and a further amount of USD 300 was required to be spent to maintain the account. Whereas the appellant claims that no such account was in existence. The reference number in form of "BUP ID" would only indicate an identification number for CHC as an entity. Thus the only dispute is regarding existence of two separate accounts in HSBC bank. 7.2 The base Note, is the only document available with the AO to contend existence of the other account. The examination of this note reveals the following:

I. The first page of the 'Base Note' shows basic details of the client profile code of Canbar Holding Corporation (CHC) and Flag. The relevant extract of the Base Note is as under:

The above extract shows details of client profile code, bearing no. 50913 27690, such as date of creation, date of closure, status, nature of profile, type of profile. Further, at the right side of the details of client profile code it also shows: ● “Patrimoineconstatéendecembre 2005" meaning thereby "Assets (account balance) noted in December 2005", the same for 2006; and ● “Patrimoine max constaté sur la periode", meaning "Maximum assets observed over the period", noting the same in November 2005.”

5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 II. The above profile letter of Mr. MK Shetty which recorded the account number as 1327690. The Base Note also records the maximum balance in November 2005 over $5 million.

III. On perusal of the entire Base Note, no such details are found for the other account, as alleged by the AO, bearing no. BUP ID 50901 60976. This number only appears in the base note under the heading "AutresPersonnesLiees Aux Profils Clients", which in English would mean "Other people linked to Client Profiles". Just above the list, the client profiles referred were of CHC and Flag. Therefore, it can be inferred that this list shows people linked with client profile code of CHC and Flag. Extract of this list is as under:

7.3 From the above, the Appellant's contention that BUP ID is only quoted into brackets next to the names of these people appears to be correct. In fact, as can be seen in the description field, just after "Nom" (name) "Code BUP" is written. For every item, the said BUP ID starts from '5090'. In the line next to the name field, "Client Profile Concerned is stated. Each of the "Client Profile Concerned starts with "5091". In the fourth last item in the above extract, the Name field and Client Profile Concerned field, both, describes "Flag Telecom Group Ltd." However, the numbers appearing against both the fields are different. Likewise, the last item in the above extract, is showing "Name" and "Client Profile 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 Concerned" of Canbar Holdings Corporation with BUP ID 50902 60976 in the name field and Client Profile No. 50913 27690 in the Client Profile Concerned.

7.4 From the above, it is observed that for every person the BUP ID is only stated in the "Name" field. Nowhere in the "Client Profile Concerned" field, is there any reference of BUP ID. Most importantly, nowhere in the Base Note, the account like details such as date of creation, maximum balance, status, type, etc. is shown for any of the BUP ID. Had the BUP ID 50902 60976 been an account there is no reason for similar details, as given for the Client Profile No. 50913 27690, would not have been in the 'Base Note'. In fact, this is the reason that while the AO has made additions towards the peak balance and interest for the Client Profile No. 50913 27690 in the subsequent assessment years, he did not make any such addition for the BUP ID 50902 60976.

7.5 From the above facts, I am of the considered view that the BUP ID is like a Business Partner Identification No. which is akin to the Customer Relationship No. as referred to in India. The BUP ID could not be considered as a bank account and as such no addition could be made presuming some initial deposit is required to open such an account or that any maintenance charges is required to be incurred to maintain such an account.

7.6 A further reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of DCIT v. Kumar Rasiklal Mehta [2022] to 442/Mum/2022, wherein the Base Note showed BUP ID and Client Profile Code for entity in question. However, in that case the assessing officer had made addition u/s. 69A only for the client profile code and did not make any adjustment for the BUP ID. Therefore, the conclusion that the BUP ID is not a separate bank account is supported by this decision as well. Hence, such a presumption is fallacious.

7.7 Even otherwise, the AO does not appear to have given any specific basis for arriving at conclusion regarding requirement of initial deposit of $1,00,000 and maintenance charges of $300. Even it is assumed that it is a separate bank account opened with an initial deposit of $1,00,000, in that case the initial deposit would have been reflected as a balance in the Base Note. However, no such details related to this BUP ID is reflected in the Base note. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the appellants contentions appears to be correct that no such separate bank account BUP ID 50901 60976" was in existence.

7.8 Further, any addition under section 69A requires the AO to record satisfaction that the explanation given by the assessee is not sufficient or true. The Appellant had explained before the AO that the BUP ID was not a separate bank account. There is no documentary evidence to suggest any initial deposit for opening such bank account. Therefore, Addition u/s. 69A cannot be made on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Accordingly, it is held that the addition made by the AO is incorrect and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 the additions made by the AO, both, substantive and protective, are hereby deleted. Accordingly appeal on these grounds is ALLOWED."

6. During the course of appellate proceeding before us, the ld. DR submitted that case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of Base Note received from the French Government. The ld. DR referred the copy of Base Note placed at page 49-54 of the paper book and referred para 3 of the order of AO wherein reason for reopening the assessment was mentioned. She contended that in the letter submitted on 08.08.2011 by the authorized representative of the assessee only the information about the bank account having BUP ID 5091327690 in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation was reported, however, as per information available with the AO on the basis of Base Note there were two bank account in the name of Canbar Holding Corporation namely, BUP ID 5090260976 and other account with BUP ID 5091327690. The ld. DR further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not considering the BUP ID 5090260976 as separate bank a/c in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation in HSBC Bank Geneva. She also submitted that ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the substantive and protective addition made on account of initial deposit, interest earned and maintenance cost in respect of alleged foreign bank a/c maintained with HSBC Bank Geneva having BUP ID 5091327690 on the ground that peak balance of the said bank a/c was already offered by the legal heirs in AY 2006-07. The ld. DR also submitted that the assessee had not provided Consent Waiver Form in order to obtain further record from the said bank. The ld. DR also contended that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that BUP ID 5090260976 was not the bank a/c no. but the business identification no. of the Canbar Holding Corporation. The ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Renu T. Tharni Vs. DCIT of ITAT, Mumbai and stated that decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Kumar Rasikhlal Mehta is not applicable. The ld. DR also submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that there was no rational in taxing the peak balance of the undisclosed bank a/c in assessment year 2006-07. The ld. DR also submitted that Base Note received from the French Government was never available with the AO at the time of earlier assessment proceedings and the foreign bank a/c with HSBC bank Geneva having BUP ID 5090260976 was undisclosed.

Sr. No. Description of item Client Code No. BUP ID 5090260976 5091327690 1. Maintenance Charges USD 300 USD 300 2. Interest USD 1,24,755 3. Total USD 125,055 USD 300 4. Substantive Additions Rs.19,80,245 Rs.4,750 (1/3rd of total amount) 5. Protective Additions Rs.39,60,490 Rs.9,502 (2/3rd of total amount) 6. Total Additions Rs.59,69,239

IV. AY 2004-05

Sr.No. Description of item Client Code No. BUP ID 5090260976 5091327690 1. Maintenance Charges USD 300 USD 300 2. Interest USD 139,171 3. Total USD 139,471 USD 300 4. Substantive Additions Rs.20,19,758 Rs.4,344 (1/3rd of total amount) 5. Protective Additions Rs.40,39,545 Rs.8,689 (2/3rd of total amount) 6. Total Additions Rs.60,72,336

V. AY 2005-06

Sr. No. Description of item Client Code No. BUP ID 5090260976 5091327690 1. Maintenance Charges USD 300 USD 300 2. Interest USD 1,39,725 3. Total USD 140,025 USD 300 4. Substantive Additions Rs.20,42,264 RS.4,375 (1/3rd of total amount) 5. Protective Additions Rs.40,84,529 Rs.8,751 (2/3rd of total amount) 6. Total Additions Rs.61,39,919

VI. AY 2006-07

Sr. No. Description of item Client Code No. BUP ID 5090260976 5091327690 1. Maintenance Charges USD 300 USD 300 2. Interest USD 2,04,043 3. Total USD 2,04,343 USD 300 4. Substantive Additions Rs. 30,38,224 Rs.4,460 (1/3rd of total amount) 5. Protective Additions Rs.60,76,480 Rs.8,921 (2/3rd of total amount) 6. Total Additions Rs. 91,28,085

10. The AO opined that aforesaid bank a/c bearing BUP ID 5090260976 was not disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed. The AO was of the view that the initial deposit made to open these accounts along with maintenance charges and income generated on such account should have been disclosed in 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 the return of income. In this regard the AO had neither disproved the submission of the assessee nor established that assessee had paid the alleged initial deposit amount to open the bank account along with maintenance charges. We have also gone through the Base note showing basic detail of client profile code of Canbar Holdings Corporation Ltd. The relevant extract of the base note is as under:

11.1 In the Base Note alongwith name of the account holder under the head profile client the name of related parties with code BUP has also been provided. Accordingly, in the case of Canbar Holding Corporation its name (code BUP) is 5090260976. Similarly, in the base note in the case of FLAG Telecom Group its account (profile code) is 509142631 and there are a number of name (code BUP) start with 5091 of the various connected parties i.e. Venkat Ramesh Sandeep Tandon, Harsh Kumar, Satpal Malhotra etc. We do not find any merit in the action of the assessing officer in treating the name id of 5090260976 as account and adding the amount of initial deposit and maintenance charges merely on presumption basis purely on the pretext that assessee had not signed consent waiver without controverting the various submission and relevant supporting material as discussed filed by the assessee. It is also evident from the Base Note that account (profile code) start with 5091 that is 5091327690 and connected name start with 5090 that is 5090260976 in respect of Canbar Holding Corporation. In respect of 5091327690 the AO had already assessed peak balance of USD 55,46,646 mentioned in the base note vide order dated 13.01.2012 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the A.Y. 2006-07.

11.2 We have also perused the decision of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Rasiklal Mehta (2022) (ITA No. 438 to 442/Mum/2022) wherein addition was only made u/s 69A in respect of client profile code without making any adjustment of name BUP ID as also discussed in the order of Ld. CIT(A). In the case of DCIT vs Kumar Rasiklal Mehta (2022) to 442/Mum/2022 as referred by the ld. CIT(A) in that case addition was only made for client profile irrespective of the similar other particulars like the case of the assessee available in the base note. In that case ITAT also held that addition of initial deposit was made on surmises which stand merged in the balances shown carried forward. It is clear from the facts and material discussed that (BUP id) 5090260976 was merely a business partner identification number for the entity and there existed no separate account.

11.3 We find the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Renu T Tharani vs DCIT (International Taxation) (2020) 117 taxmann.com 84 (Mumbai) relied upon by the ld. DR are distinguishable from the case of the assessee. In that case the assessee was clearly beneficial owner of deposit in foreign bank account showing Rs. 196 crores peak amount based on Base Note. In that case the assessee has not explained the contents of the Base Note and claimed that assessee was a non-resident and was chargeable to tax only on income which accrues or arises in India. Whereas in the case of the assessee it was explained after referring the relevant material that customer profile 5091327690 for account holder Canbar Holding Corporation mentioned in the Base Note showing maximum peak balance 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 of USD 55,46,646 has already been taxed in the A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 13.01.2012 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and the BUP ID 5090260976 was the name id of Canbar Holding Corporation linked to a/c no. 5091327690 and not another bank account as discussed supra in the order.

11.4 Looking to the above facts and finding we don’t find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, ground of appeal 1 to 3 of the revenue are dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

AY: 2002-03 12. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are as under:

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the substantive and protective additions made on account of initial deposit made and interest earned by the assessee in the foreign bank account having BUP ID 5091327690 and the maintenance cost incurred on the foreign bank accounts having BUP IDs 5091327690 & 5090260976 maintained in HSBC Bank, Geneva by disregarding the fact that the foreign bank accounts were not disclosed in his Return of Income?"

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not considering the BUP ID as account number, by placing reliance on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs Kumar Rasiklal Mehta [2022] to 442/Mum/2022; however in the case of Kumar Rasiklal (supra), the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai had not deliberated on whether BUP ID is to be considered as a separate bank account number or not."

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in deleting the substantive and protective additions made on account of initial deposit in the foreign bank account having BUP ID 5091327690 and interest earned by the assessee in the foreign bank account having BUP ID 5091327690 and maintenance cost incurred on the foreign bank accounts having BUP IDs 5091327690 & 5090260976 maintained in HSBC Bank, Geneva by disregarding the fact that the assessee had refused to give consent to the HSBC Bank, Geneva in favour of the department, so that necessary record could be received from the HSBC Bank and the necessary additions would have been made in the hand of the assessee and his legal heir.

4. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

5. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary."

13. The assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.8,99,65,840/- on 29.07.2002. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the act on 26.03.2019. In the reason recorded for reopening the AO has mentioned about the assessment year 2001- 02 which has been reopened on the basis of information received as per Base Note that assessee was beneficiary of foreign bank account with HSBC bank. The AO was also of the view that there were two bank accounts in the name of Canbar Holding Corporation having BUPID 5090260976 and BUP ID 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 5091327690. The AO has also referred the submission made by the authorized representative before the DGIT (Inv) Mumbai that the assessee late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani had opened foreign bank account with HSBC Bank Geneva in the year 2001-02 with BUP ID 5091327690.

13.1 Similar to assessment year 2001-02 as discussed supra after referring unspecified information available in the public domain of initial deposit of USD 1,00000 and maintenance charges of USD 300 along with estimated interest earned in respect of account no.5091327690 were added to the total income of the assessee. The AO has also made double addition by adding the peak deposit of USD 55,44,646 mentioned in the base note in respect of bank account bearing no. 5091327690 without considering that same had already been taxed in the assessment year 2006-07 u/s 147 r.w.s 143 of the act as discussed. Similarly, as discussed while adjudicating the appeal for A.Y.2001-02 vide ITA 4331/M/2024 as supra after treating the name id of 5090260976 as account the assessing officer has added the amount of maintenance charges merely on presumption basis.

13.2 On similar issue and identical fact, we have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide AY: 2001-02 in respect of initial deposit and maintenance charges as discussed supra in this order, therefore, applying the finding of the same mutatis mutandis the grounds of appeal relating to initial deposit and maintenance charges of the Revenue are dismissed and other addition of deposit on the basis of peak balance of USD 5544646 along with estimated interest for client profile no. 509327690, we find that same amount has already been assessed on the basis of peak in the Assessment Year 2006- 07 vide order dated 13.01.2012 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act as discussed, therefore, AO has made the same addition without any relevant reason is clearly amount to a double addition of the same amount and the interest amount has been estimated purely on assumption basis without substantiating with any relevant material. In the case DCIT vs Kumar Rasiklal Mehta (2022) to 442/Mum/2022 as referred by the ld. CIT(A) as discussed while adjudicating appeal for A.Y.2001-02 the ITAT also held that addition of initial deposit was made on surmises which stand merged in the balances shown carried forward. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the decision of Ld.CIT(A). In view of the facts and findings as discussed all the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue 1 to 4 of the appeal are dismissed. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is dismissed.

ITA No.4348/Mum/2024 AY: 2003-04 14. On similar issue on identical fact, we have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide AY: 2001-02 and vide AY: 2002-03 as discussed supra in this order, therefore, applying the finding of the same mutatis mutandis this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed.

ITA No.4347/Mum/2024 AY: 2004-05

15. On similar issue on identical fact, we have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide AY: 2001-02 and vide AY: 2002-03 as discussed supra in this order, therefore, applying the finding of the same mutatis mutandis this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed.

5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 AY: 2005-06 16. On similar issue on identical fact, we have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide ITA No.4331/Mum/2024 AY: 2001-02 and vide ITA No. 4324/Mum/2024 AY: 2002-03 as discussed supra in this order, therefore, applying the finding of the same mutatis mutandis this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed.

ITA No.4345/Mum/2024 AY: 2006-07 17. On similar issue on identical fact, we have dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide AY: 2001-02 and vide AY: 2002-03 as discussed supra in this order, therefore, applying the finding of the same mutatis mutandis this appeal of the revenue is also dismissed.

Cross Objection Nos. 215/M/2024 to 220/Mum/2024 19. Since all the six cross objections filed by the assessee are based on identical issues on similar facts therefore these objections are adjudicated together by taking the cross objection no.215/M/215 as lead and its findings will be applied mutatis mutandis to the other cross objections. Cross Objection No. 215/M/2024

2. Erred in not quashing the reassessment order by holding that the notice issued u/s. 148 was barred by limitation, as the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(b) had expired on 31st March 2008, and as such clause (c) to section 149(1) of the Act could not be applied to the assessment year in question as the same was introduced prospectively, vide Finance Act, 2012.

3. Erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were ultra vires in absence of there being any new tangible material in the hands of the assessing officer.

4. erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind and without affording any opportunity to the Appellant for cross examination of the author of the information relied upon by him, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio.

5. failed to appreciate that the re-assessment proceedings were void in absence of any income which escaped assessment as - i) BUP ID 5090260976 was not a bank account; and ii) the peak balance of A/c. no. 5091327690 (being Client Profile Code as per the base note) was already offered and assessed to tax in the hands of Late Ambani in AY 2006-07.

5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 The respondent craves leave to add, to amend, vary or alter including by substitution any of the grounds of cross objections as they or their representatives may think fit and craves leave to consider all the grounds of cross objections as without prejudice to each other.”

The ld. Counsel by referring various judicial pronouncement contended that amended provision would apply to any assessment year on or before 1st April, 2012 provided the period of limitation under the pre-amended provision is not expired as on 1st July, 2012. Based on the amended provisions of section 149(1) the AO reopened the assessment for the assessment year under consideration which had already attained finality on 31st March, 2008. It was contended that the assessment which has already attained finality cannot be reopened on the basis of subsequent amendment.

3.1. The Base Note shows the two IDs at one single place as under:

3.2. Even though, the copy provided is not in English language, the same has been attempted to be understood and the English version would read as- Name (BUP code): Canbar Holdings Corporation (50902 60976)

Customer Profiles concerned: Canbar Holdings Corporation (50913 27690) => Account Holder (CLOSED)

3.3. Hence, it can be understood that there are not multiple / different BUP IDs as you mentioned in your notice. Evidently, ID no. 50902 60976 is a BUP ID. Whereas, nowhere can it be seen that the ID No. 50913 27690 was also a BUP ID. That has been referred as Customer Profile ID, In fact, in all the items listed in Base note, account number are not mentioned as BUP ID.

3.4. As per international practice of banking, the Assessee understands that BUP ID is a Business Partner Identification assigned to the entity itself. Whereas, bank account number is different from the said BUP ID and is linked with the same. 3.5. Accordingly, the Assessee submits that from the Base Document, only one bank account appears with one BUP ID and bank account number.

3.6. This is further confirmed from details mentioned in the same Base Note, under the heading "Autres Personnes Liees Aux Profils Clients", which in English would mean "Other people linked to customer profiles" for other entities. The screenshot of the same is as under:

3.7. In all the above cases, there is one BUP ID mentioned against the name field, which starts with '5090'. There is another ID mentioned against the Customer Profile, which starts with '5091'. This is irrespective of whether the name of the customer is same with the profile name. Hence, it is evident that the BUP ID is like a customer relationship number and the profile no. is like a bank account number.

5.1. On another query by the Bench in respect of how ld. Assessing Officer arrived at a figure of USD 1,00,000 (approx.) as initial deposit made to open the bank account and cost of about USD 300 per year to be incurred towards maintenance of the said account. In this respect ld. CIT DR referred to the reasons recorded for the process of re-opening of the case and pointed that the same is contained as under: “As per available information a deposit of USD 100000 (approx) is to be made to open such an account and cost of about USD 300 per year would be incurred, which information and the source thereof have not been disclosed by the assessee in the said return of income.”

5.2. Further, ld. Counsel also referred to para-18 and pointed out that ld. Assessing Officer merely stated that this figure is based on information available in public domain for which ld. Counsel thus asserted that ld. Assessing Officer proceeded merely on the basis of surmises that assessee had deposited USD 1,00,000 to open an account and cost of USD 300 incurred per year to make the addition. There is no ascertainment of fact as to whether the said amount was actually deposited in the bank account as claimed by the ld. Assessing Officer for the purpose of making addition and actual incurrence of maintenance cost of USD 300 for the same.

7. In respect of the BUP ID at Sr. No.3, similar assertions are made by the assessee explained and corroborated from the base note and relevant material placed on record. Relevant portion from the submissions made by the assessee in this respect is extracted below:

“18. As regards the BUP ID 5090160984, it/only appears at one place in the Base Note, which is extracted as under- The above field appears to contain personal details such as date of birth, place of residence, sex, marital status, etc. It is logical to contain a business partner identification number along with such details. Besides, the BUP ID 5090160984 is quoted under the heading "identifiers internes" which translates in to "internal identifiers". A business partner identification no. which is akin to (customer relation no. in India). 18.2 The factual details regarding the BUP ID has already been discussed in while deciding the additions made on account of BUP ID 50901 60976 in the A.Y 2001-02. It is observed that for every person the BUP ID is only stated in the "Name" field. Nowhere in the "Client Profile Concerned" field, is there any reference of BUP ID. Most importantly, nowhere in the Base Note, the account like 5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 details such as maximum balance, status, type, etc. is shown for any of the BUP ID. Had the BUP ID been an account there is no reason for similar details, as given for the Client Profile No.s, would not have been in the 'Base Note'. In fact, this is the 1 reason that while the AO has made additions towards the peak balance and interest for the Client Profile No. 5091327690 in the subsequent assessment years, he did not make any such addition for the BUP ID 5090160984. 18.3 Further while deciding the appeal for A.Y 2001-02, it is already discussed that the HSBC bank, Geneva, vide letter dated 30th June 2011, confirmed that the appellant did not hold any account by himself or beneficially. Therefore, no addition could be made u/s. 69A alleging that the Appellant held any account in the said bank.

7.1. On the above, assessee also submitted that for the BUP IDs of Flag and FCDI, letter from HSBC Bank dated 30.06.2011 very specifically explains that assessee was a member of the Board of Directors of Flag Telecom Limited and was an Authorised Signatory for the account held by Flag. HSBC Bank confirmed in this letter that assessee did not hold any account in HSBC Bank, Switzerland by himself or as a beneficial owner.

7.2. Thus, on the above facts and submissions which are pari materia to the other two IDs, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) in respect of third BUP ID i.e. 5090160984.

8. Considering the facts discussed above and issue already dealt elaborately by the Co-ordinate Bench on identical fact pattern in the case of late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani in 4331 and 4345 to 4348/Mum/2024, respectfully following the same, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

8.1. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed.

5140, 5123, 5121, 5118 and 5117/MUM/2024 C.O. Nos. 233, 235, 234, 236, 237 and 238/MUM/2024 Mukesh D. Ambani., AY 2001-02 to 2006-07 9. Since we have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue vide AY: 2001-02 as discussed supra in this order, therefore, on similar issue on identical facts, applying the finding of the same mutatis mutandis, all the other captioned five appeals of Revenue are also dismissed.

Cross Objection Nos. 233/M/2024 to 238/Mum/2024 11. Since all the six cross objections filed by the assessee are based on identical issues on similar facts, therefore, these objections are adjudicated together by taking the cross objection No.233/M/2024 as lead case and its findings will be applied mutatis mutandis to the other cross objections.

Cross Objection No. 233/M/2024 12. The cross objection filed on the validity of reopening assessment is as under:

1. 1. Erred in not quashing the re-assessment order dated 30th December 2019 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the reassessment order").

2. Erred in not quashing the reassessment order by holding that the notice issued u/s. 148 was barred by limitation, as the period of limitation u/s. 149(1)(b) had expired on 31st March 2008, and as such clause (c) to section 149(1) of the Act could not be applied to the assessment year in question as the same was introduced prospectively, vide Finance Act, 2012.

3. Erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were ultra vires in absence of there being any new tangible material in the hands of the assessing officer. 4. erred in not holding that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind and without affording any opportunity to the Appellant for cross examination of the author of the information relied upon by him, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio. 5. failed to appreciate that the re-assessment proceedings were void in absence of any income which escaped assessment as- i) BUP ID 5090260976 was not a bank account; ind ii) the peak balance of A/c. no. 5091327690 (being Client Profile Code as per the base note) was already offered and assessed to tax in the hands of Late Shri. Dhirubhai Ambani in AY 2006-07