PRADIP BURMAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

Since the under lying facts in the captioned appeals are identical for both the years, therefore, they were heard together

The quarrel revolves around the alleged deposit in the HSBC Bank account, Zurich though the quantum may differ in both the years.

Representatives of both the sides were heard together at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidences brought on record duly considered in the light of rule 18 (6) of the ITAT Rules.

Facts of the case are that the assessee was a non resident in F.Y. 1999-2000 and 2001. When the assessee was admittedly a non resident he opened bank account with HSBC Bank. In the year 2001 the assessee returned to India and disassociated himself from such bank accounts with HSBC, Zurich.

Information was received by CBDT about the foreign account and income of the assessee for the period relevant to A.Y. 2006- 07 and 2007-08 when the assessee came to know about such information then on 03.10.2011 he filed a letter with ADIT, Investigation Unit-3, New Delhi stating that he has learnt about his name appearing in list of stolen data of HSBC bank account holder and agreed to deposit the income tax alongwith interest under protest on the balance purportedly mentioned in the list. It was clearly stated that the deposit of tax should not be taken

On 07.10.2011 the assessee again filed a letter with the aforementioned authority and reiterated what has been stated in the letter dated 03.10.2011.

On 14.10.2011 once again the assessee wrote a letter to the same authority stating that to the best office memory the amounts lying in the said bank account of HSBC is around US $ 40,000 in F.Y. 2005-06 relating to A.Y. 2006-07 and US $ 32.12 lacs in F.Y. 2006-07 related A.Y. 2007-08 and pointed out that he has deposited the tax for the respective assessment years. The assessment for the respective assessment years was completed by the AO vide order dated January 2014 by making addition of the amount disclosed by the assessee in the respective assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 and penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act were separately initiated.

Since the assessee has offered the income under protest the additions were challenged before the CIT(A) but without any success.

Before us the Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. It is the say of the

The DR strongly supported the findings of the AO.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is the true that some information was received by CBDT about the foreign account in HSBC Bank. It is equally true that the said information was the outcome of stolen data and not received from any Government.

Since the assessee was a non resident till A.Y. 2000-01 and had bank accounts with HSBC Bank under a mistaken belief offered the income for taxation in the impugned assessment years, in respect of deposits in the said Bank account.

Be that as it may since the deposit in the said bank account cannot be denied, therefore, there is no other way but to tax the same as income of the assessee in the impugned assessment years and rightly done so by the AO and rightly confirmed by the CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any merit in the captioned appeals by the assessee and the same are dismissed.