LATE DARIUS SAM MOTASHAW (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE JEHAN MOTASHAW),MUMBAI V. DDIT(INV) UNIT 2(4), MUMBAI

BMA 23/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal representative of Late Darius Sam Motashaw against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the assessment of undisclosed foreign assets and income under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The appellant contested various additions made to the assessed income, claiming these were inherited assets and not undisclosed foreign assets. The tribunal considered additional evidence presented by the appellant and decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712971 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Black Money Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: R.C. MODI AW KETKI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Residential status
• Section: 132; 153A; 234B; 10

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./BMA No. 23/MUM/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Late Darius Sam Motashaw (Through Legal Representative Jehan Motashaw) 10A, Jiwan 11 LD Ruparel Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai v/s. बिाम Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit 2(4), Mumbai 1st Floor, scandia House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AASPM9391A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri R.C. Modi a/w Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, CIT DR स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing 03.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-51, Mumbai [Ld. CIT(A)], 07.02.2025 passed u/s. 17 of Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as “BMA”] for AY 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the appeal: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 BMA No. 23/Mum/2025 AY 2019-20 Late Darius Sam Motashaw (Through Legal Representative Jehan Motashaw) “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the deposits of 200,912.11 Euros (Equivalent to INR 1,62,26,345) received from RGN Trust as the value of undisclosed foreign assets, without appreciating that the said amount was received as inheritance from the Appellant's late uncle Dr Rusi D Motashaw, duly supported by documentary evidence including the trust deed and correspondence from the trustees on the ground that the Appellant failed to establish a direct and verifiable link between the Inheritance claim and the funds received. The Appellant submits that the receipt of funds of 200,912.11 Euros (Equivalent to INR 1,62,26,345) be not treated as undisclosed foreign assets and income and the same be reduced from the assessed income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of maturity proceeds of OLED (Deposits in Foreign Banks), opening balances in 2010 in foreign bank accounts, and maturity proceeds of bonds and deposits as money received as inheritance money from late father Sam D Motashaw equivalent to INR 7,07,48,965 as undisclosed foreign assets, allegedly being, without appreciating that the said funds represented inherited assets from the Appellant's deceased father duly supported by documentary evidence including Inheritance Certificate in absence of credible evidence establishing the linkage between inheritance money and the proceeds received towards the same. The Appellant submits that the receipt of INR 7,07,48,965 be not treated as undisclosed foreign assets and income and the same be reduced from the assessed income. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of GBP 64,000 (Equivalent to INR 59,06,214) as unexplained foreign assets and income, ignoring the fact that the said sum was transferred by the Appellant's son Cyrus Motashaw from his verifiable bank account, out of funds refunded from a failed investment in BTS Fund, duly supported by email correspondence and bank records on the ground that the Appellant failed to provide conclusive evidence to establish the legitimacy of the credit in the bank account of his son. The Appellant submits that the receipt of funds of GBP 64,000 (Equivalent to INR 59.06,214) be not treated as undisclosed foreign assets and income and the same be reduced from the assessed income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition in respect of the deposit of GBP 3,000 (Equivalent to INR 2,76,853) as undisclosed foreign bank deposits. despite the Appellant furnishing passport pages, travel details, and bank withdrawals to prove that the deposits were out of withdrawals made during overseas travel in absence of verifiable evidences linking the deposits to prior withdrawals. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 BMA No. 23/Mum/2025 AY 2019-20 Late Darius Sam Motashaw (Through Legal Representative Jehan Motashaw) The Appellant submits that the deposit of GBP 3,000 (Equivalent to INR 2.76,853) be not treated as undisclosed foreign assets and income and the same be reduced from the assessed income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the inclusion of income amounting to Rs. 52,23,785/- in respect of interest and dividend received by the Appellant in foreign bank accounts and investments despite the Appellants submission that the same are already offered to tax in the Return of Income filed under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, and the same has been assessed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3), and the same cannot be reassessed under the Black Money Act on the ground that the Black Money act has supremacy over the Income Tax Act. The Appellant submits that the foreign income in respect of interest and dividend shown in the Return of Income and further assessed be not treated as undisclosed foreign income. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the value in foreign bank accounts which were already closed prior to the previous year 2018-19, as undisclosed assets located outside India despite the fact that they were not assets held during the year under consideration and are outside the purview of taxation under the BMA for AY 2019-20. The Appellant submits that the abovementioned foreign bank accounts be not treated as undisclosed assets located outside India and the value of same should be reduced from assessed income. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the inclusion of foreign income earned prior to AY 2016-17 as undisclosed foreign income, without appreciating that the Black Money Act, 2015 came into force from 01.07.2015 and does not apply retrospectively to income earned in earlier years. The Appellant submits that foreign income earned prior to the Assessment Year 2016-2017 be reduced from the assessed income and be not treated as undisclosed income. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the charge of interest of Rs 62,21,204 u/s 234A, interest of Rs 7,65,445/- u/s 234B, and interest of Rs. 15,70,854/- u/s 234C of the Income-tax Act, which are not applicable in proceedings under the Black Money Act or alternatively were erroneously computed. The Appellant submits that interest charged u/s 234A, 234B and 234C be deleted. 9. The Appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, after, amend or annual any of the grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing and to produce such further evidences, documents and papers as may be necessary.” Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 BMA No. 23/Mum/2025 AY 2019-20 Late Darius Sam Motashaw (Through Legal Representative Jehan Motashaw) 3. At the outset it is seen that there is a delay in filing of appeal of 20 days. An affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed. After considering the circumstances explained in the affidavit, we are of the view that minor delay of 20 days in due to reasonable cause and in, therefore, being condoned. 3.1. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Indian National and Tax Resident of India. Information was received regarding ownership of undisclosed foreign bank accounts by the assessee. It was further noticed that the assessee was associated with foreign bank accounts in the United Kingdom. The assessee has been a non-filer since AY 2001-02 and has, thus, not disclosed these bank accounts to the Indian income tax authorities as required by law. The Finance Act, 2012 has made it mandatory to file information relating to asset located outside India in the income tax return. 3.2. In view of the above facts, a search action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 27.06.2018 in the case of assessee. Thereafter, an order u/s. 10 of the Black Money Act, (BMA) was passed by the DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai (AO) on 27.03.2021 wherein undisclosed foreign income and assets were quantified at Rs. 10,36,86,730/- and tax liability of Rs. 3,11,06,019/- was determined u/s. 3 of the BMA. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order u/s. 17 of the BMA dated 07.02.2025, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 5 BMA No. 23/Mum/2025 AY 2019-20 Late Darius Sam Motashaw (Through Legal Representative Jehan Motashaw) 3.3. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted additional evidences in the form of a certificate from RGN Trust confirming that the assessee was only a beneficiary and not the settler of the trust. A copy of RM file note has also been placed on record. It has been explained by Ld. AR that the confirmation letter from the trustee was received later and hence is being filed now as an additional evidence. We have heard the rival submissions. Since the additional evidence has been filed before us for the first time, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits after considering the additional evidence. He is further directed to give due opportunity to both the parties. 4. In the result appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- ANIKESH BANERJEE RENU JAUHRI (न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 31.07.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 6 BMA No. 23/Mum/2025 AY 2019-20 Late Darius Sam Motashaw (Through Legal Representative Jehan Motashaw) सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "