ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, MANGALURU, MANGALURU V. ABDUL RAHIMAN, MANGALURU

BMA 6/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Revenue against the CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji's decision, which had favored the assessee, Shri Abdul Rahiman. The primary issue was the classification of 96,000 Singapore dollars, received by the assessee as a marriage gift from his father-in-law, as undisclosed foreign income under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The assessee argued that the amount was a legitimate gift and had been disclosed in the annual accounts. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, supported by a gift deed and other documents, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal by the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 825199 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Black Money Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VEERANNA M MURGOD
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Gift
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER BMA No.6/Bang/2025 Assessment year : 2022-23 The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Mangaluru. Vs. Shri Abdul Rahiman, NH 17, Partner, M/s. Kanachur Seasoning Industries, Kallapu P.O., Permannur – 575 017. Mangalore. PAN: AEDPR 3377Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri N. Balusamy, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Respondent by : Shri Veeranna M Murgod, AR Date of hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2022-23 against the appellate order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji [ld. CIT(A)] dated 25.3.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 10 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 [BMA] dated 28.6.2024 determining the undisclosed foreign income of the assessee at Rs.89,49,796 was allowed. Printed from counselvise.com BMA No.6/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 6 2. The brief facts of the case show that the assessee is a partner in Kanachur Seasoning Industries, Mangalore. A search was conducted in case of Kanachur Islamic Education Trust, Mangalore on 17 February 2021. During the course of search evidences were gathered and it revealed that the assessee has a shareholding in foreign entity namely Koju Global PTE Ltd., Singapore. The assessee's father Mr U K Monu owned 48% shares worth Singapore dollar 96,000 which was by way of a marriage gift from his father-in-law who is a resident of Dubai. The ld. AO initiated the proceedings under section 10 of the BMA. Therefore notice was issued to the assessee. The ld. AO was shown the investment detail in the name of the assessee on 29 April 2022 wherein the investment of 95,999 Singapore dollar being the investment made by Mr Mohamed Ashraf Maved, the father-in-law of the appellant residing in Dubai for and behalf of the assessee is a marriage gift. The details of the same are declared in schedule FA of the income tax return. The income tax Department in a show cause notice alleges that the said declaration is made only after issuance of the notice and therefore there is no compliance under the Black Money Act. The notice also noted that though assessee has disclosed the above sum in schedule FA but it is just to rectify the mistake of non-declaration of the details in earlier years. The assessee submitted that there was no movement of consideration within or outside India. The details regarding investments have been reflected in the yearly balance sheets which have been filed every year or along with the income tax return Printed from counselvise.com BMA No.6/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 6 and therefore there is no non-disclosure and there is no undisclosed income by the assessee. 3. The ld. AO noted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has admitted the fact that in his name investment of 96,000 Singapore dollars was made by the father-in-law as marriage gift. In support of his claim marriage certificate and marriage invitation card were submitted. The assessee was also asked to provide the supporting documents that the above amount was given by his father-in-law as a marriage gift and therefore a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 29 January 2024. In response to the show cause notice the assessee failed to submit the source of investment of 96,000 Singapore dollars and therefore the same was considered as income of the assessee and the valuation was made of such asset and accordingly a sum of ₹ 8,949,796/– was considered as the undisclosed foreign income of the assessee by assessment order dated 28.6.2024. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order on 25th of March 2025. According to the ld. CIT(A), assessee filed the gift deed dated 2 March 2011 which was written in urdu language. The assessee has also filed the English translation deed dated 2 August 2018 executed on the stamp paper. He further referred to the extract of the deed and also the confirmation of gift by the father- in-law of the assessee. He noted that the father-in-law has stated that he has made a gift on the marriage of the assessee which has been accepted by the assessee. Based on this the ld. CIT(A) was of the view Printed from counselvise.com BMA No.6/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 6 that above sum is not the undisclosed income of the assessee. Further he noted that in the return for assessment year 2022 – 23 the above sum was already disclosed as an investment. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) held that that the assessee has explained the sources of funds along with documentary evidences and thus the source of investment is explained. Therefore the assets cannot be termed as undisclosed assets located outside India. Accordingly he deleted the addition. 5. The ld. AO is aggrieved with the same and was of the view that the additional evidences of affidavit was admitted by the ld. CIT(A) and no opportunity was given to the AO for verification. 6. The ld.DR vehemently referred to the fact that the assessee has produced the gift deed before the ld. CIT(A) which has not been submitted by the assessee before the ld. AO and therefore the additional evidence was admitted by the ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition and that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable. 7. The learned AR submitted that gift deed is merely a confirmation of the sum given by the father-in-law of the assessee on the marriage of the assessee. These facts were stated before the assessing officer and merely the confirmatory gift deed does not qualify as an additional evidence but it is merely supporting the argument of the assessee. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. The fact shows that there is an investment made by the assessee of 96,000 Singapore dollar which was Printed from counselvise.com BMA No.6/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 6 received by the assessee as a marriage gift from his father-in-law who is a resident of Dubai. The amount of investment was made in Koju Global PTE Ltd., Singapore. These facts were stated before the assessing officer, the amount was also disclosed in the annual accounts. During the course of the appellate proceedings the assessee has merely confirmed the above fact by way of a gift deed. The ld. CIT(A) has held that when the amount is not an undisclosed income, but is recorded in the books of accounts submitted and supported by the fact that the amount of 96,000 US Singapore dollar were received by the assessee on his marriage from his father-in-law. His father-in-law has also confirmed the same. Therefore we do not find any infirmity in the deletion of the above addition. The affidavits submitted by the assessee in the form of gift deed is merely a confirmatory statement made by the father-in-law of the assessee and therefore same cannot be said to be additional evidences which is admitted by the ld. CIT(A) for deletion of the addition. 9. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer and hence same is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( SOUNDARARAJAN K. ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 30th December, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Printed from counselvise.com BMA No.6/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 6 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "