DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), MUMBAI V. SHRI SHAUNAK JITENDRA PARIKH, MUMBAI

ITA 2935/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves a batch of five appeals filed by the Revenue against different respondents, namely Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, and Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, concerning the assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000. The appeals were based on the grounds that the respondents were beneficial owners of undisclosed foreign bank accounts and had not disclosed the income from these accounts in their returns. The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessments under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information received from the French authorities under the India-France DTAA. However, the Tribunal found that the additions made were not in line with the reasons recorded for reopening the assessments, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300153 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs Jet Airways India Ltd [2011] 321 ITR 236 (Bom.), Peter Vaz vs CIT [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.), Hindustan Lever Ltd vs R.B.Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.), N.Govindaraju vs ITO [2015] 1.07.2015 (Karnataka High Court)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Double taxation relief; Question of law; Tax effect; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 132; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 250; 69A; 139(1); 13; 22; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.2931/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 1999–2000) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–1(2), Mumbai ................ Appellant v/s Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh 15A, J. Mehta Road, Next to Khatau Condominium, Mumbai 400 006 Mumbai 400 006 PAN – AADPP0814G ................Respondent ITA no.2932/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 1999–2000) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–1(2), Mumbai ................ Appellant v/s Shri Raj Hiten Parikh 41, Laxmi Niwas, 87, Nepean Sea Road Mumbai 400 006 PAN – AGFPP6664E ................Respondent ITA no.2934/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 1999–2000) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–1(2), Mumbai ................ Appellant v/s Shri Jay Ketan Parikh 94–D, Tanhee Heights 66, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 PAN – AAIPP66881J ................Respondent Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 2 ITA no.2935/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 1999–2000) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–1(2), Mumbai ................ Appellant v/s Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh 161–D, Tanhee Heights, 66, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 PAN – AADPP0826C ................Respondent ITA no.2933/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 1997–98) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–1(2), Mumbai ................ Appellant v/s Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh 15A, J. Mehta Road, Next to Khatau Condominium, Mumbai 400 006 PAN – AADPP0814G ................Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta a/w Ms. Priya Kumar Revenue by : Smt. Jayashree Thakur Date of Hearing – 01/02/2023 Date of Order – 21/03/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present batch of 5 appeals has been filed by the Revenue in the matter of different respondent assessees, namely, Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, and Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, challenging the separate impugned orders of even dated 15/09/2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–47, Mumbai, [“learned Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 3 CIT(A)”], arising out of separate assessment orders passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act. 2. At the outset, both parties agreed that though the individual tax effect in these appeals is below the prescribed limit of Rs.50 lakhs laid down by the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019, however, all these appeals fall under the exception clause (d) of para-10, i.e. where addition related to undisclosed foreign income/undisclosed foreign assets (including financial assets)/undisclosed foreign bank account, as prescribed in CBDT Circular dated 11/07/2018. 3. It is undisputed that similar issues arising out of similar and related facts are involved in these appeals. Therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. The Revenue has raised similar grounds in all 5 appeals, therefore, grounds of appeal raised in ITA no.2931/Mum./2022, for the assessment year 1999-00, in the case of Shri Milan Kevin Parikh, are reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,24,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act towards balance lying with the undisclosed foreign bank account maintained by M/s. Olga Ltd. and M/s. Blackberry International Ltd. with HSBC Bank, Switzerland, of which assessee was the beneficial owner. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) in his decision has failed to consider the fact that the specific information was received from the French Government under DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements) in the form of 'Base Note', wherein, it was mentioned that the assessee was beneficial owner of bank accounts in the name of various entities and it contained various personal details of the assessee like Name, Address, Date of Birth, Profession, Passport No., Date of opening of the bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva alongwith bank balance in dollars for various years. Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 4 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) in his decision has placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the assessee's own case for A.YS. 2006-07 and 2007-08 ignoring that the HSBC bank accounts involved in AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 pertains to M/s. Sulay Trading Ltd. and M/s. Laptis Trading Ltd. whereas the bank accounts involved in the year under consideration pertains to M/s. Olga Ltd. and M/s. Blackberry International Ltd and that finding made by the Tribunal for those years with regards to the accounts of M/s. Sulay Trading Ltd. and M/s. Laptis Trading Ltd. is not applicable for the assessment under consideration. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) in his decision has placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai in the assessee's own case for A.YS. 2006-07 and 2007-08 without appreciating that the ITAT has placed reliance on judicial pronouncement in the case of All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. Department has not accepted this decision and further appeals have been filed in the cases." 4. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: In these cases, information under Article 28 of the India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was received regarding the 4 undisclosed foreign bank accounts held with HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. As per the information, these bank accounts were in the name of 4 companies where 4 individuals, who are resident Indians and are cousin brothers belonging to Mahindra Brothers group, are beneficial owners as per the Base Note received. By way of Base Note, information such as name, date of birth, place of birth, sex, residential address, profession, and nationality along with the date of opening of the bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva, and balance in certain years was provided. In order to investigate these facts, a search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 08/08/2011 on Mahendra Brothers Export Private Limited, its directors including Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, and Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh. Pursuant to the search action, the bank statement of these 4 individuals with HSBC Bank, Geneva, came into possession of the Investigation Wing, which Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 5 showed that these 4 individuals are beneficiaries of the 4 bank accounts held by the following companies in HSBC Bank, Geneva:- Sr. no. Name of the Entity Account number Code Profile Client Date of Creation 1. Sulay Trading Limited 5091320491 20.04.2001 2. Laptis Trading Limited 5091316222 17.10.2001 3. Olga Limited 5091255754 25.06.1998 4. Blackberry International Limited 5091255711 25.06.1998 5. The BUP_code with respect to the above-mentioned bank accounts of the 4 individuals are as under:- Sr. no. Name of the Individual Date of Creation BUP_SIFIC_PER–ID 1. Milan Kavinchandra Parikh 02.02.1997 BUP 5090132872 2. Jay Ketan Parikh 29.06.1998 BUP 5090144519 3. Raj Hiten Parikh 29.06.1998 BUP 5090144520 4. Shaunak Jintendra Parikh 07.03.2001 BUP 5090158784 6. On the basis of the above information, reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of all 4 individuals, and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. In response to the aforesaid notice, these individuals filed a letter that the return filed under section 139(1) of the Act be treated as a return filed in compliance with the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were provided to all the assessees. During the course of search action as well as during the course of reassessment proceedings, all the assessees denied owning any such bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. All the assessees also Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 6 did not furnish the consent waiver form waiving the protection of secrecy laws, so as to enable the government to get the requisite information and verify the details/letter furnished by the assessee. After verification of the information available in the seized material, appraisal report, and of the material available on records and in the light of the crucial evidential information held in possession of the Department received from the French authorities under the provisions of the DTAA and as per the enquiries conducted during the course of assessment proceedings in the cases of these 4 assessees, namely, Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, and Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, the Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act held that these assessees are the beneficial owners of the aforesaid foreign bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. In the assessment order dated 27/03/2015, for the assessment year 1997-98, in the case of Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, it was held that the date of creation of bank account was 02/02/1997, and the minimum balance required to open an account in HSBC Bank, Geneva was CHF (Swiss Franc) 100,000, in order to get the benefit of secrecy services provided by the bank. As the assessee has failed to disclose this amount in his return of income, therefore, an amount of CHF 100,000, which in terms of Indian currency comes to Rs.24,24,000 (as per the exchange rate prevailing on 03/02/1997) was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 7 8. Similarly, vide separate assessment orders of even date 30/11/2016, for the assessment year 1999-2000, in the cases of Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, and Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act all the individuals were held to be owners of the undisclosed foreign bank accounts. Further, following the findings rendered in the case of Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh for the assessment year 1996-97, the Assessing Officer held that these individuals have failed to disclose an amount of CHF 100,000, which is the minimum balance required in order to get the benefit of secrecy services by the bank. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of the aforesaid amount of CHF 100,000, which in terms of Indian currency comes to Rs.25,24,000 (as per the exchange rate prevailing on 29/06/1998) to the total income as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 9. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), all the assessees challenged the assessment orders both on the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act as well as additions made by the Assessing Officer. Vide separate impugned orders, the learned CIT(A) upheld the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act and held that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to initiate the reassessment proceedings, which were duly recorded and communicated to the assessee. On merits, the learned CIT(A) following the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 8 10. During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) submitted that the addition in the present case has been made on the basis of base note information received from the French authority under the India-France DTAA. It was also submitted that all the information received by the assessee was confronted with all these assessees. However, these assessees only confirmed the personal information and denied any connection with these bank accounts. Further, the assessees have also not provided the consent waiver form to enable the department to obtain the information from the HSBC Bank, Geneva. 11. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) relied upon the impugned order as well as the order passed by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case and made other submissions on merits. Learned AR by referring to the petition dated 17/01/2023 filed under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (“ITAT Rules”) in all these appeals submitted that no addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the issue which is the subject matter of the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Thus, while supporting the final decision of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition, it was submitted that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make the addition under section 147 of the Act, in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways India Ltd [2011] 321 ITR 236 (Bom.). Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 9 12. Since similar grounds in the petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules have been raised by the assessee in all these appeals, except with variance in dates, therefore, grounds raised in ITA no.2931/Mum./2022, for the assessment year 1999-00, in the case of Shri Milan Kevinchandra Parikh, are reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 25,24,000/- on account of the amount allegedly deposited while opening the bank account in the name of the assessee with HSBC bank on 02.02.1997, although the reopening of the assessment was based on the reason to believe that the bank account was opened with HSBC bank on 25.06.1998 in the name of Olga Limited and Blackberry International Limited and thus the funds/money lying in the account of companies remains untaxed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act was beyond his jurisdiction as he has not made any addition based on the reasons for reopening the assessment as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jet Airways (1) Ltd. [321 ITR 236 (Bom)]. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or alter, the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 13. It is pertinent to note that in response to the petitions filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, the learned DR furnish a copy of the report dated 27/01/2023, received from the office of Additional CIT, Central Range-1, Mumbai. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the petition filed by the assessee under Rule 27 as well as Revenue‟s response thereto. By way of the petition under Rule 27, it is the plea of the assessee that the assessment in these cases has been completed under section 147 and no addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the issue which is the subject matter of reasons for Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 10 reopening the assessment and therefore, the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act to make the impugned addition. 15. In the present case, it is undisputed that the assessee though had challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act before the learned CIT(A), however, the aforesaid plea now raised before us by way of the petition under Rule 27 was not raised and therefore was not dealt in the impugned order. Though the assessee is supporting the final decision of the learned CIT(A) of deletion of addition, however, by way of the petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. In order to support the admission of the petitions filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, the learned AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in Peter Vaz vs CIT, [2021] 436 ITR 616 (Bom.). From the perusal of the aforesaid decision, we find that the following additional substantial question of law was framed by the Hon‟ble Court:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was open to the appellant/assessee to have supported the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), based on the ground that the jurisdictional parameters prescribed under section 153C of the I.T. Act were not fulfilled, even without the necessity of filing any cross objections ?" 16. We find that while deciding the aforesaid question, the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court analysed the provisions of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules and held that an issue, which was not raised before the CIT(A) and which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate the proceedings, can be raised by way of a petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 11 Rules and the Tribunal should allow the assessee to raise such an issue in the appeal instituted by the Revenue, even without the necessity of filing any cross objections. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Court in the aforesaid decision are as under:- “26. To begin with therefore we propose to consider the issue as to whether there was any necessity for the Appellants/assessees to file cross-objections before the ITAT to raise the jurisdictional issue of compliance with jurisdictional parameters before any proceedings could be initiated under section 153C of the IT Act. 27. In this case, admittedly, the CIT (Appeals) had decided the matters in favor of the assessees and even set aside the orders made by the Assessing Officers. Therefore, the assessees did not have to institute any further appeals to the ITAT. The Revenue in this case had appealed to the ITAT against the orders made by the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, the issue is, whether the assessees could have raised the issue of non-compliance with jurisdictional parameters set out under section 153C of the IT Act, before the ITAT, even without filing any cross-objections before the ITAT. 28. At least, prima facie, non-compliance with jurisdictional parameters set out under section 153C of the IT Act, if established, will go to the root of the matter and even nullify the very action initiated under section 153C of the IT Act. Based on the material furnished to the assessees, it was the case of the assessees that what was found in the course of search proceedings under section 132 of the IT Act in the premises of the said firm and the said company, were the books of accounts belonging to the said firm and the said company. It is the case of the assessees that no books of accounts belonging to the assessees i.e. Peter Vaz and Edgar Afonso were found in the search proceedings under Section 132 in the premises of the said firm and the said company. Therefore, it was the case of the assessees that no proceedings under section 153C of the IT Act could ever have been initiated against these assessees. 29. Mr. Pardial stressed that the provisions of Section 153C as amended up to the year 2013 required the Assessing Officer to be satisfied that the books of the accounts belonging to the assessees who were proposed be proceeded with under section 153C ought to have been found, as a precondition for any action under section 153C of the IT Act. For this purpose, he compared the provisions of Section 153C as amended up to 2020, in which, there is a significant departure. Amended provisions, which did not apply to the present case, provided that the action under section 153C was competent even if the books of accounts "pertaining to" and belonging to the assessee were found during the search under section 132 upon a person not referred to in Section 153A of IT Act. He submitted that this was an issue of law and therefore, the ITAT should have permitted the assessees to raise this issue even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. He referred to Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 to contend that this Rule gives a right to the Respondent Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 12 in an appeal before the ITAT to support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him, even though he may not have appealed against the order. 30. Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 reads as follows:- "Respondent may support order on grounds decided against him. 27. The respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him." 31. In this case, the assessees merely wanted to support the order made by the CIT (Appeals), which was entirely in their favor. The assessees wished to raise an issue, that was at least prima facie going to the root of jurisdictions initiate proceedings under section 153C of the IT Act. Having regard to the provisions of rule 27 referred to above, the ITAT in our opinion should have permitted the assessees who were Respondents before it, to support the orders of CIT (Appeals) on this ground, even without the necessity of filing any cross- objections. 32. In Dahod Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was deciding whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee needed to file cross-objections despite fully succeeding in appeal and therefore, being unable to challenge the finding of the CIT (Appeals) that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 33. In the above case, the CIT (Appeals) recorded a finding that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income but for detailed reasons set out, the CIT (Appeals) quashed the penalty imposed upon the assessee under section 271 of the IT Act. In the appeal filed by the Revenue before the ITAT, the assessee sought to assail the finding of concealment but the ITAT did not permit the assessee to do so, on the ground that the assessee had failed to file any cross-objections. 34. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court however held that the ITAT committed an error in law in not permitting the assessee to assail the finding of the concealment without filing cross-objections. The Court held that the ITAT apparently lost sight of the fact that the assessee had succeeded before the CIT (Appeals) that had allowed the assessee's appeal and even set aside the penalty in its entirety. Therefore, the assessee did not have to appeal. The position in law is well settled that the cross-objections, for all intents and purposes. would amount to an appeal and the cross objector would have the same rights which an appellant has before the Tribunal. Since the assessee did not have to appeal, the ITAT could not have insisted upon the filing of cross- objections as a precondition for permitting the assessee to assail the finding of concealment. 35. The Division Bench referred to the provisions of section 253 of the IT Act and after analyzing the scheme held that on a plain reading of the provision, it transpires that the party had been granted an option or a discretion to file cross-objections. In case a party having succeeded before the CIT (Appeals) opts not to file cross-objection even when an appeal is preferred by the other Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 13 party, from that, it is not possible to infer that the said party had accepted the order or the part thereof which was against the respondent. Since the ITAT drew such an inference that was not supported by the plain language of Section 253, the High Court held that the ITAT was clearly in error. 36. The High Court then referred to Rule 27 quoted above and held that if the inference drawn by the ITAT is accepted as a correct proposition, then, it would render rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 redundant and nugatory. The High Court held that it is not possible to interpret the provision in such a manner. Any interpretation placed on a provision has to be in harmony with the other provisions under the Act or the connected Rules and interpretation which makes other connected provisions otiose has to be avoided. Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules is clear and unambiguous. The right granted to the respondent by the said Rule cannot be taken away by the Tribunal by referring to the provisions of Section 253(4) of the IT Act. The ITAT was, therefore, in error in holding that the finding recorded by the CIT (Appeals) remained unchallenged since the assessee had not filed cross-objections. 37. The reference in this regard can also be made to the provisions of section 260A(7) of the IT Act which provides that save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to appeals to the High Court shall, as far as may apply in the case of appeals under this Section. Now in the context of the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC dealing with the cross-objections, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Nazeer Ahmed (supra) has held that the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the appellant not having filed a memorandum of cross-objections in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code, could not challenge the finding of the trial Court that the suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code. The respondent in an appeal is entitled to support the decree of the trial Court even by challenging any of the findings that might have been rendered by the trial Court against himself. For supporting the decree passed by the trial Court, it is not necessary for the respondent in the appeal, to file a memorandum of cross- objections challenging a particular finding that is rendered by the trial Court against him when the ultimate decree itself is in his favor. A memorandum of cross-objections is needed only if the respondent claims any relief which had been negatived to him by the trial Court and in addition to what he has already been given by the decree under challenge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, held that the respondent in the appeal had every right to canvas the correctness of the finding on the bar of Order II Rule 2 rendered by the trial Court. 38. In the present case, it is not as if the issue of non-fulfillment of jurisdictional parameters of Section 153C was raised but rejected by the CIT (Appeals). Such an issue was not raised before the CIT (Appeals). Having regard to the provisions of Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 us also the provisions of section 260A(7) read with Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Nazeer Ahmed (supra) we think that the ITAT should not have precluded the assessees from raising the issue in the appeals instituted by the Revenue, even without the necessity of filing any cross-objections. Accordingly, the additional substantial question of law is required to be answered in favor of the Appellants/assessees and against the Revenue.” Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 14 17. From the perusal of the report furnished by the learned DR, we find that no objection has been raised by the Revenue regarding the admissibility of the petitions now filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Even during the hearing, the learned DR did not raise any objection regarding the admissibility of these petitions filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules and on the other hand, made submissions on the merits of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above and respectfully following the decision of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court cited supra, the petitions filed by the assessee in these appeals under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules are admitted for adjudication. ITA no.2933/Mum./2022 Shri Milan Kevinchandra Parikh - A.Y. 1997-98 18. In the case of Shri Milan Kevinchandra Parikh, for the assessment year 1997-98, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act:- “The information was received under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) from the French Authorities regarding the foreign Bank accounts under Article 28 of the Indo-French Fiscal Convention Treaty dated 29/11/1992. These accounts are held with the HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. There are four accounts in the name of four companies where the four individuals who are resident Indians and arecousin brothers belonging to M/s Mahendra Brothers Group are the Beneficial Owners. As per Base Note received, the details of these accounts are as under: Sr. no. Name Account Number / Code Profile Client 1. Sulay Trading Limited 5091320491 2. Laptis Trading Limited 5091316222 3. Olga Limited 5091255754 4. Blackberry International Limited 5091255711 Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 15 The BUP Code with respect to the above mentioned Bank accounts for the-four individuals are as follows: Sr. no. Name of the Individual Date of Creation BUP_SIFIC _PER–ID 1. Jay Ketan Parikh 29/06/1998 5090144519 2. Raj Hiten Parikh 29/06/1998 5090144520 3. Milan Kavinchandra Parikh 02/02/1997 5090132872 4. Shaunak Jintendra Parikh 07/03/2001 5090158784 3. From the date of creation as provided in the said information it is clear that in the case of one of the assessee i.e. Sri. Milan Kavinchandra Parikh, the Beneficiary has been created on 02/02/1997 i.e. A.Y. 1997-98. The assessee have denied to own up the above referred Bank accounts in his individual capacities or in any other capacity with the said accounts. The fact that a large number of assessees have confirmed the existence of similar Bank Accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland mentioned in the information received under DTAA is credible and the contention of the above-mentioned assessee is prima- facie not correct. 4. The individual has been declared as beneficiaries of the several accounts held in HSBC Bank, Geneva as mentioned above and for the purposes of identification, the detail of this specific beneficiary is available in the records of HSBC Bank, Geneva. From the records, it has been observed that the name of the assessee, his address and passport details were provided in respect of the individual who have been mentioned as beneficiary with their specific pieces of identities for the respective accounts. Subsequently, letters were written to the Passport Office to verify the authenticity of the information from the perspective of the records maintained by the Passport Office. The Passport Office has provided the details that the specific Passport Number belong to the individual and confirmed the name as well as address on the basis of their records. This verification further proves that there is not an iota of doubt that the beneficiary mentioned in respect of the accounts maintained with HSBC Bank, Geneva are the very same individual assessee against whom the proceedings of Income-Tax would have to be carried out in respect of the entitlement of benefits from the said Bank Accounts held at HSBC Bank, Geneva. 5. The details provided by the French Government has given the details of beneficiaries in respect of Bank Accounts held in HSBC, Geneva and as per the details the beneficiary of the said accounts, the assessee is entitled to balances lying in the account of M/s Sulay Trading Limited, M/s Laptis Trading Limited, M/s Olga Limited and M/s Blackberry International Limited. As per the information available, the balances outstanding with M/s Sulay Trading Limited is $ 2,45,764, and with M/s Laptis Trading Limited is $ 2,98,91,844. Since the Individual assessee have been mentioned as Beneficial Owners' the same would be taxable in respect of his specific entitlements in these bank accounts. The assessee was called upon to seek more information on the balances lying in these Bank accounts as stated above and was requested to provide his consent Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 16 for sharing of these account details of HSBC, Geneva with the Department. But the assessee have refused to sign any such Consent Waiver Form. Instead, the assessee have availed a letter from HSBC, Geneva providing certain facts as under: “1. The Assessee have never visited the Bank to open the Bank Accounts of the named companies and he has never signed any papers with the Bank. 2. The Assessee have not operated any of the Accounts of the above named companies with the Bank. 3. The Assessee have not themselves initiated any transactions with the Bank 4. The Bank is not aware of any receipts or distributions made personally from or to the assessee from the accounts held with the Bank in the name of the said companies. 5. The Bank has not found any record that the said assessee were either directors or authorized signatories on the said accounts of the above named companies. Further, the Bank has concluded that "Please take note that we are only providing commentary and confirmation in respect of the function of directors and/or authorized signatories with regard to these accounts" Based on the abovementioned letter filed by the assessee from HSBC, Geneva, it can be seen that the Bank have never stated that the assessee is not the Beneficial Owner of the said Bank accounts. As the Beneficial Owner of the said Swiss Bank Accounts, the assessee is not required to go to the Bank. Further, the Beneficial Owner of any such Swiss Bank Accounts may not necessarily be the signatory. In addition, the transactions are not required to be initiated by the Beneficial Owner as it would be suffice if it was done by the signatory of the Account. Even the information that the said assessee is not the Director or Signatory of the Accounts is not very much pertinent since he is the Beneficial Owner of the said Accounts. In its concluding remarks, the HSBC Bank, Geneva has categorically stated and disclaimed that commentary and confirmation is in respect of the function of directors and/or authorized signatories with regard to these accounts i.e. Sulay Trading Limited, Laptis Trading Limited, Olga Limited and Blackberry International Limited. But this letter is absolutely mute on the beneficial ownership and real interest of the assessee in the funds lying in the said Accounts, which would only belong to the assessee as one of its Beneficial Owner. Therefore, more information from HSBC, Geneva is required to be sought after availing the Consent Waiver Form from the assessee as per Swiss Banking Laws. But the assessee has not co-operated in furnishing his Consent under some vague pretext. It is also a fact that the said accounts in HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland can be opened only on depositing minimum specified amount ie account cannot be opened with no deposit or balance. 6. Under these circumstances, the income of the said assessee as the Beneficial Owner of the funds lying in these Bank Accounts have been proven beyond doubt. It is also noted that the said Bank accounts have not been disclosed to the Department by the assessee. 7. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee Shri. Milan Kavinchandra Parikh holds the above Bank accounts in HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland and since the income as a Beneficial Owner of the fund lying in the various Bank accounts has escaped from assessment and taxation, the Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 17 assessments for A.Y. 1997-98 is reopened u/s. 147 of the Act in respect of Assessment Year as mentioned above.” 19. From the perusal of aforesaid reasons, it is evident that the same mentions the name of the Companies in whose names accounts have been maintained in HSBC Bank, Geneva. In para 5 of the aforesaid reason, the Assessing Officer alleged that the assessee is entitled to balances lying in the account of aforesaid 4 companies. Further, it has been alleged that since the assessee is the beneficial owner of these undisclosed bank accounts, therefore the balance outstanding is taxable in the hands of the assessee. In para 7 of the aforesaid reasons, the Assessing Officer ultimately concluded that the assessee holds the bank accounts in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland and the funds lying in the various bank accounts are its income as the beneficial owner, which has escaped assessment and taxation. Thus, the assessment for the assessment year 1997-98 was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Therefore, no doubt true that on the basis of information received from the French authorities and the search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has reason to initiate the reassessment proceedings. However, the belief formulated by the Assessing Officer was only limited to the extent that the funds lying in the various undisclosed bank accounts maintained with HSBC Bank, Geneva is the income of the assessee, being the beneficial owner of the bank accounts, which has escaped assessment and therefore is taxable. Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 18 20. However, while passing the assessment order dated 27/03/2015 under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 25,24,000, by observing as under:- “29. For the financial year 1996-97 relevant to assessment year 1997-98 the minimum balance required to open a account in HSBC, Geneva Bank, in which the assessee has opened an account and created his profile, it is learnt that minimum amount required to open an account in HSBC Geneva was 1,00,000/- CHF, in order to get the benefit of secrecy service provided. Since the assessee failed to disclose this amount in his return of income therefore an amount of CHF 100,000 which in terms of Indian Rupees comes to Rs. 25,24,000/- (as per RBI website, calculated at the exchange rate of INR of 25.24 to 1 CHF prevailing as at 03-02-1997) is assessed as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and assessed accordingly. Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.” 21. Therefore, from the above it is sufficiently evident that the reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act was initiated to bring to tax the funds lying in various bank accounts, however, while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer made the addition of the minimum balance required to open an account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. In this regard, the following observations of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in Jet Airways India Ltd (supra) become relevant: “16. ........Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was the basis of the formation of belief and if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which, comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him independently to assess some other income. If he intends to do so, a fresh notice under section 148 would be necessary, the legality of which would be tested in the event of a challenge by the assessee. 17. We have approached the issue of interpretation that has arisen for decision in these appeals, both as a matter of first principle, based on the language used in section 147(1) and on the basis of the precedent on the subject. We Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 19 agree with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the assessee that section 147(1) as it stands postulates that upon the formation of a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income "and also" any other income chargeable to tax which comes to his notice subsequently during the proceedings as having escaped assessment. The words "and also" are used in a cumulative and conjunctive sense. To read these words as being in the alternative would be to rewrite the language used by Parliament......” 22. It is the submission of the Revenue that the „subject matter‟ of the reasons and the „subject matter‟ of the addition made by the Assessing Officer is the same i.e. foreign bank accounts maintained with the HSBC bank, Geneva. Therefore, it was submitted that when the subject matter is the same the addition made by the AO cannot be said to be not based on the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. We are of the considered view that even if it is accepted that the subject matter is the same, however, as is evident from the record the income which was alleged to have escaped assessment and the income that was ultimately added in the hands of the assessee are completely different, as the earlier one refers to the funds lying in the undisclosed bank accounts, while the latter refers to the minimum balance required to open such an account. 23. At the same time, we cannot be oblivious to the trite law that the reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to note the following observation of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd vs R.B.Wadkar: [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.): Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 20 “20. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his reasons. It is for the Assessing Officer to reach to the conclusion as to whether there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the concerned assessment year. It is for the Assessing Officer to form his opinion. It is for him to put his opinion on record in black and white. The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. Reasons are the manifestation of mind of the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons. Reasons provide link between conclusion and evidence. The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submission, otherwise, the reasons which were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Further, by relying upon the decision dated 01.07.2015 passed by the Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in N.Govindaraju vs ITO, the learned DR submitted that the Assessing Officer can make addition on all grounds or issues which may come to notice of the Assessing Officer subsequently during the course of proceedings under section 147, even when the reason for the notice for „such income‟ which may have escaped assessment, may not survive. We are of the considered opinion that since the decision in Jet Airways India Ltd (supra) has been rendered by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the same is binding on us. Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 21 25. In view of our aforesaid findings and respectfully following the decisions of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court cited supra, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make the addition under section 147 of the Act. As a result, the petition dated 17/01/2023 filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is allowed. 26. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits are rendered academic and therefore, are dismissed. 27. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, as filed by the assessee, is allowed. ITA no.2931/Mum./2022 Shri Milan Kevinchandra Parikh - A.Y. 1999-00 28. In the case of Shri Milan Kevinchandra Parikh, for the assessment year 1999-00, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act:- “REASONS FOR REOPENING U/S, 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 The information was received under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) from the French authorities regarding the foreign bank accounts under Article 28 of the Indo-French Fiscal Convention Treaty dated 29/11/1992. These accounts are held with the HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. There are four accounts in the name of four companies where the four individuals who are resident Indians and are cousin brothers belonging to M/s. Mahendra Brothers are the beneficial owners. As per Base Note received, the details of these accounts are as under :- Sr. no. Name of the Entity Account number Code Profile Client Date of Creation 1. Sulay Trading Limited 5091320491 20/04/2001 2. Laptis Trading Limited 5091316222 17/10/2001 Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 22 3. Olga Limited 5091255754 25/06/1998 4. Blackberry International Limited 5091255711 25/06/1998 The BUP Code with respect to the above mentioned bank accounts for the four individuals are as follows:– Sr. no. Name of the Individual Date of Creation BUP_SIFIC_PER–ID 1. Milan Kavinchandra Parikh 02/02/1997 BUP 5090132872 2. Jay Ketan Parikh 29/06/1998 BUP 5090144519 3. Raj Hiten Parikh 29/06/1998 BUP 5090144520 4. Shaunak Jintendra Parikh 0703/2001 BUP 5090158784 In this regard, assessment proceedings in the case of the above mentioned 4 individuals for A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 as well as in the case of Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh for A.Y. 1997-98 are already completed wherein the Assessing Officer has established that the above mentioned assessees are having this undisclosed bank account and made certain additions. Further, on perusal of the information (in the form of Base Note), it is seen that the account is opened by the above mentioned 4 individuals (including the assessee, Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh) in the name of Olga Limited and Blackberry International Limited on 25/06/1998, i.e. Financial Year 1998-1999 (A.Y. 1999-2000). Therefore, the funds/money lying in the account of these two companies and such other names (if found further) has not been disclosed by the assessee in his Return of Income and hence remains untaxed. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee, Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh holds the above Bank Accounts in HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland, and since the income as a Beneficial Owner or otherwise of the funds lying in these certain Bank Accounts has escaped assessment and taxation, the assessments for A.Y. 1999-2000 is reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 29. However, while passing the assessment order dated 30/11/2016 under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 25,24,000, by observing as under:- “14. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 25,24,000/- equivalent to CHF 1,00,000 (1 CHF = 25.24/- INR) being initial investment required to open/maintain an account in HSBC, Geneva, which is undisclosed Bank Account of the assessee is treated as the undisclosed income which has not been accounted for and has escaped assessment. Accordingly an addition of Rs. 25,24,000/- u/s. 69A of the Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 23 Income Tax Act 1961, is made to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 1999-00.” 30. Therefore, in this case also, it is sufficiently evident that the reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act was initiated to bring to tax the funds lying in various bank accounts, however, while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer made the addition of the minimum balance required to open an account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. Thus, our aforesaid findings rendered in ITA No. 2933/Mum./2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis. As a result, the petition dated 17/01/2023 filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is allowed. 31. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits are rendered academic and therefore, are dismissed. 32. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, as filed by the assessee, is allowed. ITA no.2932/Mum./2022 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh - A.Y. 1999-00 33. In the case of Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, for the assessment year 1999-00, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act:- “REASONS FOR REOPENING U/S, 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 The information was received under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) from the French authorities regarding the foreign bank accounts under Article 28 of the Indo-French Fiscal Convention Treaty dated 29/11/1992. These accounts are held with the HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. There are four accounts in the name of four companies where the four individuals who are resident Indians and are cousin brothers belonging to M/s. Mahendra Brothers Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 24 are the beneficial owners. As per Base Note received, the details of these accounts are as under :- Sr. no. Name of the Entity Account number Code Profile Client Date of Creation 1. Sulay Trading Limited 5091320491 20.04.2001 2. Laptis Trading Limited 5091316222 17.10.2001 3. Olga Limited 5091255754 25.06.1998 4. Blackberry International Limited 5091255711 25.06.1998 The BUP Code with respect to the above mentioned bank accounts for the four individuals are as follows:– Sr. no. Name of the Individual Date of Creation BUP_SIFIC_PER–ID 1. Raj Hiten Parikh 29.06.1998 BUP 5090144520 2. Milan Kavinchandra Parikh 02.02.1997 BUP 5090132872 3. Jay Ketan Parikh 29.06.1998 BUP 5090144519 4. Shaunak Jintendra Parikh 07.03.2001 BUP 5090158784 In this regard, assessment proceedings in the case of the above mentioned 4 individuals for A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 as we" as in the case of Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh for A.Y. 1997-98 are already completed wherein the Assessing Officer has established that the above mentioned assessees are having this undisclosed bank account and made certain additions. Further, on perusal of the information (in the form of Base Note), it is seen that the account is opened by the above mentioned 4 individuals (including the assessee, Shri Raj Hiten Parikh) in the name of Olga Limited and Blackberry International Limited on 25/05/1998, i.e. Financial Year 1998-1999 (A.Y. 1999- 2000). Therefore, the funds/money lying in the account of these two companies and such other names (if found further) has not been disclosed by the assessee in his Return of Income and hence remains untaxed. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee, Shri Raj Hiten Parikh holds the above Bank Accounts in HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland, and since the income as a Beneficial Owner or otherwise of the funds lying in these certain Bank Accounts has escaped assessment and taxation, the assessments for A.Y. 1999-2000 is reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 25 34. However, while passing the assessment order dated 30/11/2016 under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 25,24,000, by observing as under:- “14. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 25,24,000/- equivalent to CHF 1,00,000 (1 CHF = 25.24/- INR) being initial investment required to open/maintain an account in HSBC, Geneva, which is undisclosed Bank Account of the assessee is treated as the undisclosed income which has not been accounted for and has escaped assessment. Accordingly an addition of Rs. 25,24,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961, is made to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 1999-00.” 35. Therefore, in this case also, it is sufficiently evident that the reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act was initiated to bring to tax the funds lying in various bank accounts, however, while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer made the addition of the minimum balance required to open an account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. Thus, our aforesaid findings rendered in ITA No. 2933/Mum/2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis. As a result, the petition dated 17/01/2023 filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is allowed. 36. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits are rendered academic and therefore, are dismissed. 37. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, as filed by the assessee, is allowed. ITA no.2934/Mum./2022 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh - A.Y. 1999-00 Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 26 38. In the case of Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, for the assessment year 1999-00, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act:- “REASONS FOR REOPENING U/S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 The information was received under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) from the French authorities regarding the foreign bank accounts under Article 28 of the Indo-French Fiscal Convention Treaty dated 29/11/1992. These accounts are held with the HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. There are four accounts in the name of four companies where the four individuals who are resident Indians and are cousin brothers belonging to M/s. Mahendra Brothers are the beneficial owners. As per Base Note received, the details of these accounts are as under :- Sr. no. Name of the Entity Account number Code Profile Client Date of Creation 1. Sulay Trading Lmited 5091320491 20.04.2001 2. Laptis Trading Limited 5091316222 17.10.2001 3. Olga Limited 5091255754 25.06.1998 4. Blackberry International Limited 5091255711 25.06.1998 The BUP Code with respect to the above mentioned Bank accounts for the-four individuals are as follows: Sr. no. Name of the Individual Date of Creation BUP_SIFIC _PER– ID 1. Jay Ketan Parikh 29/06/1998 BUP 5090144519 2. Milan Kavinchandra Parikh 02/02/1997 BUP 5090132872 3. Raj Hiten Parikh 29/06/1998 BUP 5090144520 4. Shaunak Jintendra Parikh 07/03/2001 BUP 5090158784 In this regard, assessment proceedings in the case of the above mentioned 4 individuals for A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 as well as in the case of Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh for A.Y. 1997-98 are already completed wherein the Assessing Officer has established that the above mentioned assessees are having this undisclosed bank account and made certain additions. Further, on perusal of the information (in the form of Base Note), it is seen that the account is opened by the above mentioned 4 individuals (including the assessee, Shri Jay Ketan Parikh) in the name of Olga Limited and Blackberry International Limited on 25/06/1998, i.e. Financial Year 1998-1999 (A.Y. 1999- Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 27 2000). Therefore, the funds/money Iving in the account of these two companies and such other names (if found further) has not been disclosed by the assessee in his Return of Income and hence remains untaxed. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee, Shri Jay Ketan Parikh holds the above Bank Accounts in HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland, and since the income as a Beneficial Owner or otherwise of the funds lying in these certain Bank Accounts has escaped assessment and taxation, the assessments for A.Y. 1999-2000 is reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 39. However, while passing the assessment order dated 30/11/2016 under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 25,24,000, by observing as under:- “14. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 25,24,000/- equivalent to CHF 1,00,000 (1 CHF = 25.24/- INR) being initial investment required to open/maintain an account in HSBC, Geneva, which is undisclosed Bank Account of the assessee is treated as the undisclosed income which has not been accounted for and has escaped assessment. Accordingly an addition of Rs. 25,24,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961, is made to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 1999-00.” 40. Therefore, in this case also, it is sufficiently evident that the reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act was initiated to bring to tax the funds lying in various bank accounts, however, while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer made the addition of the minimum balance required to open an account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. Thus, our aforesaid findings rendered in ITA No. 2933/Mum/2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis. As a result, the petition dated 17/01/2023 filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is allowed. 41. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits are rendered academic and therefore, are dismissed. Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 28 42. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, as filed by the assessee, is allowed. ITA no.2935/Mum./2022 Shri Saunak Jitendra Parikh - A.Y. 1999-00 43. In the case of Shri Saunak Jitendra Parikh, for the assessment year 1999-00, the Assessing Officer recorded the following reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act:- “REASONS FOR REOPENING U/S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 The information was received under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) from the French authorities regarding the foreign bank accounts under Article 28 of the Indo-French Fiscal Convention Treaty dated 29/11/1992. These accounts are held with the HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. There are four accounts in the name of four companies where the four individuals who are resident Indians and are cousin orothers belonging to M/s. Mahendra Brothers are the beneficial owners. As per Base Note received, the details of these accounts are as under :- Sr. no. Name of the Entity Account number Code Profile Client Date of Creation 1. Sulay Trading Lmited 5091320491 20.04/2001 2. Laptis Trading Limited 5091316222 17/10/2001 3. Olga Limited 5091255754 25/06/1998 4. Blackberry International Limited 5091255711 25/06/1998 The BUP Code with respect to the above mentioned Bank accounts for the-four individuals are as follows: Sr. no. Name of the Individual Date of Creation BUP_SIFIC _PER– ID 1. Shaunak Jintendra Parikh 07/03/2001 BUP 5090158784 2. Raj Hiten Parikh 29/06/1998 BUP 5090144520 3. Milan Kavinchandra Parikh 02/02/1997 BUP 5090132872 4. Jay Ketan Parikh 29/06/1998 BUP 5090144519 Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 29 In this regard, assessment proceedings in the case of the above mentioned 4 individuals for A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08 as well as in the case of Shri Milan Kavinchandra Parikh for A.Y. 1997-98 are already completed wherein the Assessing Officer has established that he above mentioned assessees are having this undisclosed bank account and made certain additions. Further, on perusal of the information (in the form of Base Note), it is seen that the account is opened by the above mentioned 4 individuals (including the assessee, Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh) in the name of Olga Limited and Blackberry International Limited on 25/06/1998, i.e. Financial Year 1998-1999 (A.Y. 1999-2000). Therefore, the funds/money lying in the account of these two companies and such other names (if found fi ther) has not been disclosed by the assessee in his Return of Income and hence remains untaxed. In view of the above, I have reason to believe that the assessee, Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh holds the above Bank Accounts in HSBC, Geneva, Switzerland, and since the income as a Beneficial Owner or otherwise of the funds lying in these certain Bank Accounts has escaped assessment and taxation, the assessments for A.Y. 1999-2000 is reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 44. However, while passing the assessment order dated 30/11/2016 under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 25,24,000, by observing as under:- “14. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 25,24,000/- equivalent to CHF 1,00,000 (1 CHF = 25.24/- INR) being initial investment required to open/maintain an account in HSBC, Geneva, which is undisclosed Bank Account of the assessee is treated as the undisclosed income which has not been accounted for and has escaped assessment. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.25,24,000/– u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is made to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 1999–00.” 45. Therefore, in this case also, it is sufficiently evident that the reassessment proceeding under section 147 of the Act was initiated to bring to tax the funds lying in various bank accounts, however, while passing the assessment order the Assessing Officer made the addition of the minimum balance required to open an account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. Thus, our aforesaid findings rendered in ITA No. 2933/Mum/2022 shall apply mutatis Shri Shaunak Jitendra Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Jay Ketan Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Raj Hiten Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1997–1998 & Shri Milan Kavin Parikh, A.Y. 1999–2000 Page | 30 mutandis. As a result, the petition dated 17/01/2023 filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is allowed. 46. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the Revenue on merits are rendered academic and therefore, are dismissed. 47. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the petition under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, as filed by the assessee, is allowed. 48. To sum up, all the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed, while the petitions under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, as filed by the assessee, are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/03/2023 Sd/- M. BALAGANESH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 21/03/2023 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai