Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood
Appellant by : Shri Rajesh P. Shah, A.R Respondent by : Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R Date of Hearing : 29.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 02.08.2021 O R D E R
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM
The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order passed by the CIT(A)-38, Mumbai, dated 31.10.2019, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax 1961 (for short „Act‟), dated 28.05.2015. As a common issue is involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed off by way of a common order. We shall first take up the appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2005-06 in ITA No. Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 2 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 342/Mum/2020, wherein the impugned order has been assailed before us on the following grounds :
“1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not holding that reopening an assessment beyond six years is bad in law and hence illegal.
2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of A.O of reopening the assessment u/s 148 beyond four years by stating that since the asset is located outside India as the provision of section 149(1)(c) relating to assessment beyond four years but within sixteen years is applicable to the appellant without appreciating the fact that appellant is mere nominee to the foreign account and hence the provision is itself not applicable to the appellant as no such appellant asset is located outside India. Hence reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act beyond four years is bad in law. The amendment to section is prospective in nature and reopening for A.Y 2005-06 is not valid as time limit for six years have lapsed.
3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of A.O of making addition of Interest amount of Rs. 93,528/- being 50% of the total interest of Rs. 1,87,056/- earned on the foreign bank account on the following ground : - a). On the ground that appellant was a joint account holder exercising full ownership and control rights over the funds in the bank account without appreciating the fact the appellant was a nominee to the foreign bank account and her name was added only for convenience as her mother is a senior citizen b). On the ground that appellant has not offered interest income for taxation without appreciating the fact that all the credit transactions in the said bank account and the source thereof belonged to Appellant mother Mrs. Bhatia Pushpa Narendra Kumar Khimji only and not the appellant and hence any consequential interest income would belong to her mother and not appellant herself.”
Briefly stated, the assessee who is a resident Individual was during the year under consideration engaged in the business of trading in garments and was a partner in a concern, viz. M/s. Deneb Enterprises and an investor in M/s Leo Tapes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Jaitha & Sons Elastic Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y 2005-06 on 28.10.2005, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,76,558/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information received by the A.O that the assessee was holding a foreign bank account, viz. Account No. 10388171 (Client No. 2080079, REF 35896ZRG) with HSBC Private Bank, Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 3 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 Zurich, and had not disclosed the deposits and interest income derived from the said bank account for the purpose of taxation, her case was reopened under Sec. 147 r.w Explanation 2(d) of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148, dated 13.02.2015 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance, it was submitted by the assessee that her original return of income be treated as the return filed in compliance to the aforesaid notice. Acting on the aforesaid request of the assessee the A.O thereafter issued notices under Sec. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Objections filed by the assessee as regards the validity of the reopening of her case were disposed off by the A.O vide his order dated 13.04.2015
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had a foreign bank account bearing the following details :
Name of Bank Account No. Client No. Heading of Currency account HSBC Private 10388171 2080079 (New 35896ZRG USD Bank, Zurich No. 6007012) On being confronted, the assessee denied the ownership of the funds deposited in the aforesaid bank account. It was submitted by the assesssee that the aforesaid bank account no. 10388171 with HSBC Private Bank, Zurich was opened by her mother Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji who was aged 72 years and was residing in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman since last 47 years. It was submitted by the assessee that her name was added in the aforesaid bank account because there was no law relating to nomination in Geneva. In order to fortify her aforesaid claim, the assessee filed an affidavit dated 15.02.2013 wherein it was deposed by her that the funds lying in the aforesaid bank account belonged to her mother Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji. Further, it was therein stated by the assessee that all the transactions qua the aforesaid bank account were carried out by her mother. In order to substantiate the aforesaid factual position the assessee on 26.03.2015 filed with the A.O a letter signed by her mother Mrs. Pushpa N.
Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 4 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 Khimji wherein she had admitted that the bank account was opened by her and all the transactions therein were made by her. However, the A.O was not persuaded to accept the aforesaid claim of the assessee. It was observed by the A.O that the assessee had herself filed with him a Compact Disc (bearing No. 0010374) that was received by her from HSBC bank, Zurich in her capacity as that of an account holder. Referring to the letter dated 22.04.2013 that was issued by the bank, it was observed by the A.O that the Compact Disc contained in digital form certain details, viz. the account opening documentation; correspondence and instructions; portfolio statements pertaining to the aforesaid bank account etc. On examining the contents of the Compact Disc the following details were gathered by the A.O : a). the assesee had signed the application dated 13.08.2004 to open the aforesaid account jointly with her mother Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji. b). joint and several agreement was also signed by both the assessee and her mother Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji on 13.08.2004 which gave rights to the assessee over the entire funds in the bank account. c). the assessee had also signed other documents on the same date such as affirmative statement for U.S withholding tax purposes regarding U.S securities and U.S sourced income, pledge agreement, fiduciary deposit agreement and collateral credit agreement. d). on 27.04.2009 the assessee agreed to sign the „Agreement to Trade in options and Futures & other derivatives‟ and „General Act of liens and Assignment‟. Further, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had on 28.04.2010 singly applied for issuance of Travel Cash Card issued by Swiss bankers bearing Maestro logo. Also, it was noticed by him that the assessee had duly confirmed the receipt of travel cash card on 29.04.2010. On a perusal of the details before Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 5 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 him, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had withdrawn money from the bank account singly and used the same for her own purpose. It was noticed by the A.O that assessee during the period spread over 29.04.210 to 25.05.2011 had on six occasions withdrawn amounts by signing the instructions/debit slip through travel cash card bearing No. 8032000397137. Also, it was noticed by him that the assessee by her duly signed instructions had directed the bank to transfer amounts, viz. (i). transfer an amount of USD 5000 on 06.05.2008 to some other account which was acted upon by the bank that had pursuant thereto debited an amount of USD 5038 (including commission) on 07.05.2008 ; (ii). transfer an amount of USD 70000 on 24.08.2009 to account number 7019 which was acted upon by the bank that had pursuant thereto debited the amount on 27.08.2009; and (iii). place EUR 1,00,000 in a monthly DCDW/ISB at market rate to be renewed on monthly basis.
Backed by the aforesaid facts, the A.O was of the view that the assessee was not a mere nominee in the aforesaid HSBC Bank account, but a joint account holder exercising full ownership and control rights over the funds in the said bank account. Accordingly, the A.O rejected the claim of the assessee that the entire funds in the aforesaid foreign bank account were deposited by her mother, and thus, she only being a nominee was neither liable to be assessed in respect of the deposits nor the income that had accrued/received in form of surpluses on account of earnings of interests and profits arising therefrom. It was observed by the A.O that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus that was cast upon her as regards proving that the funds invested in the aforesaid bank account and the income arising therefrom belonged to her mother. Rather, it was observed by the A.O that though it was the claim of the assessee that the entire investment in the aforesaid foreign bank account was made by her mother Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, however, the latter had failed to explain the sources of the deposits before her A.O i.e Income-tax Officer (IT), 13(3)(1), Mumbai. Also, it Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 6 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 was observed by the A.O that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings had not produced any documents which would have substantiated her claim that the deposits in the aforesaid foreign bank were made by her mother Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji from her own sources. Accordingly, the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid deliberations concluded that the deposits in the aforesaid bank account with HSBC Bank, Zurich, in the absence of any explanation as regards the source thereof was to be treated as unexplained. It was, thus, observed by the A.O that the unexplained deposits in the aforesaid HSBC bank account alongwith the interest and profits from transactions carried out through the said bank account was liable to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O added the unexplained credits of Rs. 3,19,30,169/- alongwith the undisclosed interest income of Rs. 1,87,056/- received in the said bank account to the returned income of the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 28.05.2015 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,29,93,780/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 28.05.2015 before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee assailed the validity of the reopening of her case, as well as the merits qua the additions made by the A.O. After exhaustive deliberations, the CIT(A) not finding favour with the claim of the assessee that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and reopened her case, upheld the validity of the reopening of her case. On merits, the CIT(A) after considering at the length the submissions of the assessee in the backdrop of the material available on record, found favour with the assessee‟s claim that the funds deposited in the HSBC bank account belonged to the assessee‟s mother Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji. It was further observed by the CIT(A) that deposits in HSBC bank account were sourced from the bank account of Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji with ANZ Grindlays bank, Muscat. It was observed by the CIT(A) that assessment was framed in the case of Mrs.
Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 7 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 Pushpa N. Khimji under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 148 for A.Y 2006-07 and A.Y 2007-08. It was noticed by the CIT(A) that on appeal the CIT(A)-55, Mumbai, vide his order passed in Appeal No. CIT(A)-55/ITO(IT)-3(3)(1)/IT-41/2015-16 vide his order dated 15.06.2016 had held that the source of the deposits reflected in the HSBC Private Bank, (Suisse) SA, Geneva were out of the credit balances in the bank accounts of Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji with ANZ Grindlays Bank, Muscat. Further, it was observed by the CIT(A) that the appeals filed by the revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A)-55, dated 15.06.2016 were thereafter dismissed by the Tribunal, vide its consolidated order passed in ITA No. 5947/Mum/2016 & ITA No. 7405/Mum/2016, dated 30.04.2019 for A.Y 2006-07 and A.Y 2007-08, respectively. Referring to the observations recorded by the Tribunal, it was observed by the CIT(A) that it was therein observed that the husband of Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji had right from 1998 onwards deposited out of the earnings from his construction business amounts in his bank account No. 10388171 with ANZ Grindlays Bank, Muscat, which as increased with the interest therein credited quantified at USD 704220, and the said amount was thereafter deposited with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA, Geneva. Accordingly, the CIT(A) on the basis of his observation that the source and ownership of the deposits in the bank account with HSBC Bank, Zurich, was satisfactorily explained as belonging to Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, therein, deleted the addition of Rs. 3,19,30,169/- that was made by the A.O in the hands of the assessee. However, as regards the interest receipts amounting to Rs. 1,87,056/-, the CIT(A) was of the view that the taxability of the said amount was intricately linked to the status of the assessee with regard to the bank account held with HSBC Private Bank, Zurich. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had entered the details, viz. name, date of birth, address of domicile, occupation and nationality and had affixed her signature as a second applicant for opening the bank account with HSBC Private Bank, Zurich, and thus was not a nominee as was so claimed by her. It was observed by the CIT(A) that though the entire funds in the aforesaid Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 8 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 bank account were deposited by the mother of the assessee, viz. Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, however, the fact that the assessee had under her signature got a travel cash card issued by the Swiss banker bearing Maestro logo; withdrawn money from the bank through cash travel card etc., therefore, it established that she being a joint account holder was exercising control over the funds lying in the said bank accounts. Backed by her aforesaid observations, the CIT(A) held a conviction that as the assessee was a joint account holder having possession of the funds and also the rights of functional operations in all respects, therefore, 50% of the bank interest income of Rs. 1,87,056/- was liable to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the A.O to retain the addition to 50% of Rs. 1,87,056/- and delete the balance addition of Rs. 93,528/-.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The Ld. Authorised Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal assailed the order of the CIT(A) to the extent he had upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessee‟s case. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) had erred in law by sustaining the reopening of the assessee‟s case beyond a period of six years from the end of the end of the relevant assessment year. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) had wrongly upheld the reopening of the assessee‟s case by the A.O under Sec. 149(1)(c) of the Act. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the assessee was only a nominee to the foreign account of her mother, therefore, in the absence of any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India its case could not have been reopened by drawing support from the extended time period contemplated in clause (c) of sub-section (1) to Sec. 149 of the Act. Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the amendment to Sec. 149 which extended the time limitation for reopening an assessment to sixteen years was Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 9 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.07.2012, therefore, the same could not have been resorted for reopening the proceedings which stood concluded before the amendment became effective. As such, it was the contention of the ld. A.R that the subsequent amendment to Sec. 149 by the Finance Act, 2012, which extended the limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years could not have been resorted for reopening concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired/lapsed before the amendment became effective. In support of his aforesaid contention reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Brahm Datt Vs. ACIT (2018) 100 taxmann.com 324 (Del). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi had thereafter been upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition filed by the department in ACIT & Ors. Vs. Brahm Datt [SLP(Civil) Diary No(s). 20207/2019; dated 05.07.2019] was dismissed. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that though the CIT(A) had observed that the source and ownership of the deposits in the bank account with HSBC Bank, Zurich, was satisfactorily explained as belonging to Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, and on the said count had deleted the addition of Rs. 3,19,30,169/- that was made by the A.O in the hands of the assessee, however, he had most arbitrarily upheld the addition of 50% of the interest income, for the reason, that the assessee was a joint account holder having possession of the funds and also the rights of functional operations qua the same in all respects. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that as it was a matter of an admitted fact borne from record that the funds lying in the foreign bank account were fully owned by the assessee‟s mother, viz. Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, therefore, no part of the interest income pertaining to such bank account could have been assessed in the hands of the assessee.
Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee was a joint Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 10 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 account holder of the foreign bank account in question, therefore, the A.O had rightly reopened her case as per the time limitation available as per clause (c) of sub-section (1) to Sec. 149 of the Act. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee was a joint account holder of the foreign bank account, therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly assessed 50% of the bank interest in the hands of the assessee.
We have heard the Ld. authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the assessee‟s counsel. Adverting to the merits of the case, we find, that the controversy in hand hinges around the assessability of the interest income accruing/arising from the funds that were deposited in the foreign bank account, viz. HSBC Bank, Zurich. As observed by us hereinabove, the Tribunal while disposing off the appeals in the case of the assessee‟s mother, viz. Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji for A.Y 2006-07 and A.Y 2007-08, vide its consolidated order passed in ITA No. 5947/Mum/2016 and ITA No. 7405/Mum/2016, dated 30.04.2019, had observed, that the amounts deposited in the bank account with HSBC Bank, Zurich, belonged to Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji (supra), and the same were received by her by way of inheritance on the death of her husband on 15.07.1988. Although, the CIT(A) while passing the impugned order had concluded that the source and ownership of the deposits in the aforesaid foreign bank account, viz. HSBC Bank, Zurich, was satisfactorily explained as belonging to Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, but was of the view that as the assessee was a joint holder of the said bank account and had possession of the funds and also the rights of functional operations in all respects as regards the same, therefore, 50% of the interest income that had accrued/arisen on the deposits lying in the said bank account during the year under consideration was liable to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we find that the CIT(A) had on the Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 11 ITA Nos. 342 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 basis of his aforesaid conviction sustained an addition of Rs. 93,528/- i.e 50% of interest income of Rs. 1,87,056/- in the hands of the assessee. The observations of the CIT(A) vis-a-vis the issue in hand are culled out as under :
7.3.7 However with regard to the interest receipts amounting to Rs. 1,87,056/- the other component of addition, the taxability in the hands of the appellant is intricately liked to the status of the appellant with regard to the alleged HSBC bank account. On perusal of the application form to open the said bank account, it is observed that the appellant has entered the details such as name, date of birth, address of domicile, occupation and nationality and affixed her signature as a second applicant for opening the alleged HSBC bank account. Further, it is not mentioned anywhere that the appellant is a nominee of the alleged HSBC bank account. Though, the entire funds were deposited by her mother, nevertheless, the appellant is not a nominal nominee as contended by the appellant as this status is not mentioned either in the application form for opening the bank account nor in any other operational document pertaining to the said bank account. The appellant has obtained on 29.04.2010, Travel Cash Card issued by the Swiss Bankers bearing Maestro logo, singly and not jointly with the mother. It is further observed that the appellant has withdrawn money from the bank account through cash travel card. Therefore, I find merit in the contention of the A.O that the appellant is not a mere nominee of the aforesaid HSBC bank accounts, but the account holder exercising control over the funds in the said bank accounts. I therefore, hold that the bank account in HSBC Bank, Zurich is held by the appellant as a joint holder of the said bank account, having possession of the funds therein and the rights of functional operations in all respects. 7.3.8. Consequent to fact that the appellant is the holder of the alleged HSBC Bank jointly with her mother, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to interest accrued/arising from the funds deposited in the said bank account. Hence, 50% of the interest receipts in the financial year relevant to the instant assessment year must be apportioned to the appellant as her share. Accordingly, 50% of Rs. 1,87,056/- of income accrued/received therein on account of interest is liable to be assessed in the hands of the appellant. The A.O is directed to retain the addition to 50% of Rs. 1,87,056/- and delete the sum of Rs. 93,528/-.
We have deliberated at length on the issue in question and are unable to concur with the view therein taken by the CIT(A). In our considered view the taxing of an income and the source thereof are intricately interwoven and cannot be divorced from each other. As held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Attchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 239 (SC) income has to be assessed in Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 12 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 the hands of the right person and the right person alone. Accordingly, in the backdrop of the aforesaid mandate of law, we shall herein deliberate on the aspect as to whether or not the assessee before us, viz. Smt. Manisha Jaitha, as held by the CIT(A), is the person who is rightly liable to be assessed qua 50% of the interest income that had accrued/arisen on the foreign bank account, viz. HSBC bank, Zurich during the year under consideration. As observed by us hereinabove, the CIT(A) following the view that was taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal while disposing off the appeals in the case of assessee‟s mother, viz. Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, had concluded that the deposits in the aforesaid foreign bank account, viz. HSBC Bank, Zurich belonged to and were owned by Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji. As such, there is no dispute on the issue that the deposits in the foreign bank account with HSBC bank, Zurich are owned by and belonged to the assessee‟s mother, viz. Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji. However, as observed by the CIT(A), for the reason that the assessee was a joint holder of the aforesaid bank account and had the rights of functional operations of the said account in all respects, therefore, 50% of the interest income that had accrued/arisen in the said bank account during the year under consideration was liable to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. In our considered view, now when the deposits lying in the foreign bank account in question are undisputedly held to be belonging to and owned by Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji, then, the interest income arising therefrom without any choice have to be brought to tax in her hands only. In case the interest income accruing/arising on the funds lying in the aforesaid bank account are divorced from the person who owns the said funds, then, the same, in our considered view would lead to incongruous results that would had never been intended by the legislature. Our aforesaid conviction is in fact fortified by the fact that the legislature in all its wisdom had in order to plug any diversion of income without there being any transfer of income yielding asset/source had specifically in Chapter V – Sec. 60 to 65 of the Act provided for circumstances wherein income from revocable transfers would be Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 13 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 related back and clubbed in the hands of the transferor. Now, in the case before us, the deposits lying in the bank account in question with HSBC bank, Zurich undisputedly belong to and are owned by the assessee‟s mother, viz. Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji. Although, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee as a joint holder of the aforesaid foreign bank account had all the rights of functional operations of the said account, but the same would by no means justify relating of any part of the interest income on such funds/deposits lying in the said foreign bank account in the hands of any other person except for the owner of said funds, viz. Mrs. Pushpa N. Khimji. Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations not being able to persuade ourselves to accept the view taken by the CIT(A) that 50% of the interest income i.e an amount of Rs. 93,528/- (50% of Rs. 1,87,056/-) was liable to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee, we, thus, set-aside his order to the said extent and vacate the addition of Rs. 93,528/- that was sustained by him. The Grounds of appeal
No. 3 is allowed.
10. As we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits and vacated the addition to the extent the same was sustained by the CIT(A), therefore, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the contentions advanced by the assessee vis-a-vis the validity of the reopening of the case of the assessee, which are left open. The Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 are left open in terms of our aforesaid observations.
11. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y 2005-06 in is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. ITA Nos.343 to 345/Mum/2020 ITA Nos.384 to 388/Mum/2020 (Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2013-14)
12. As the facts and the issue involved in the captioned appeals i.e assessing of 50% of the interest income on the bank account with HSBC Bank, Zurich in the Smt. Manisha Jaitha Vs. ACIT Circle 26(1), Mumbai 14 to 345 & 384 to 388/Mum/2020 hands of the asssessee, remains the same, as were there before us in her aforesaid appeal for A.Y 2005-06 in , therefore, our order therein passed while disposing off the said appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis for the purpose of adjudicating the said issue raised in the captioned appeals, viz. ITA Nos.343 to 345/Mum/2020 and ITA Nos.384 to 388/Mum/2020 for Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2013-14. Accordingly, on the same terms the addition of 50% of interest income on the bank account with HSBC bank, Zurich, as had been sustained by the CIT(A), is herein vacated. On similar observations recorded while disposing off the assessee‟s appeal for A.Y 2005-06 in ITA No. 342/Mum/2020, as we have allowed the captioned appeals of the assessee on merits and have vacated the addition that was sustained by the CIT(A) vis-a-vis the interest income on the foreign bank account in the aforementioned years, therefore, on the same terms, we refrain from adverting to and therein adjudicating the claim of the assessee that the A.O had exceeded his jurisdiction and reopened her case for the aforementioned years , which are left open.
The captioned appeals of the assessee viz. to 345/Mum/2020 and ITA Nos.384 to 388/Mum/2020 for Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2013-14 are allowed in terms our aforesaid observations.
Resultantly, all the appeals of the assessee viz. to 345/Mum/2020 and ITA Nos.384 to 388/Mum/2020 for Assessment Years: 2005- 06 to 2013-14 are allowed in terms our aforesaid observations.