MR. ABBAS ABDULKARIM RASSAI ,MUMBAI V. DDIT/ADIT(INV)-1(3) FAIU, MUMBAI

BMA 10/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Abbas Abdulkarim Rassai, who was penalized for not disclosing foreign assets in the form of insurance policies in Bermuda, under the Black Money Act. The penalties were initially imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Mr. Rassai contested these penalties, arguing that he had no financial interest in the policies as they were purchased and funded by his relative, Mr. Zahid Kothari. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalties was influenced by a similar case involving Mr. Akil Abbas Rassai, where the Tribunal found that the penalties were not applicable under similar circumstances.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396311 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Black Money Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Mr. Akil Abbas Rassai Vs. DDIT/ADIT(Inv.)-1(1) FAIU, Shri Srinjoy Bose vs. ADIT (Inv.), BMA no.1 to 3/M/2023
• Laws Referred To: Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Residential status; CHAPTER IV
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BMA No.12/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 & BMA No.11/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & BMA No.10/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & BMA No.9/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 & BMA No.8/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Abbas Abdulkarim Rassai 6th Floor, Gulistan, 144 S.V. Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400052 PAN: AABPR7498C Vs. DDIT/ADIT (Inv)-1(3), FAIU, Mumbai Room NO. 2018, 20th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: ` Assessee : Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Ld. CA through Shri. Jinang Jain Revenue by : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 02.12.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) 51, Mumbai (in short ‘Ld. Commissioner) u/s. 17 of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (in short BMA) for the Assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020- 21. 2 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai 2. As the facts and issue involved in all the appeals under consideration are identical, except variation in amounts and therefore for the sake of gravity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common and composite order, by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and issue involved in BMA 12/M/2025, as a lead case and result of the same, shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to all appeals under consideration. 3. BMA 12/M/2025: In this case, an information was received by AO to the effect that the assessee has foreign assets in the form of investments in the financial entities registered in Bermuda, namely Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, as detailed below: Insurance policy no. Insurance company Date of investment Amount 8630010006 Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada 14.10.2009 USD 1,90,069 4. From the information, it was found that such investment in insurance policy was not disclosed by the assessee in FA Schedule of ITRs filed for AY 2016-17, thus, the Assessee has committed a default within the meaning of section 43 of the BMA qua such insurance policy, in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. 5. Accordingly, penalty proceeding u/s. 43 of the BMA were initiated for non- disclosure of Foreign Assets in the form of investment in insurance policy, in Schedule FA of return of income filed for the AY 2016-17 and consequently vide notice dated 17.03.2023 u/s. 46 r.w.s 43 of the BMA, the Assessee was show caused “as to why a penalty of Rs.10 lacs should not be levied in his case, in accordance with the section 43A of the Black Money Act, 2015 for the AY 2016-17 for not disclosing his offshore investment in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Bermuda) (A/c. No. 8630010006) in FA schedule of the ITR for AY 2016-17”. 6. The Assessee in response to such show cause notice dated 17.03.2023, filed his reply dated 27.03.23, and claimed as under: 3 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai \"I am in receipt of your above-captioned notice dated 17.03.2023. In this regard, I would like to submit as under: At the outset, I would like to submit that I don't have/ have had association with or financial interest in financial entities registered in Bermuda ie. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. As submitted in my earlier replies, I merely have a life insurance policy in my name for which I am neither a beneficiary nor an investor. The said life insurance policy was purchased by my relative and premium of the policy was also paid by them. The Policy documents along with the affidavit from relative are once again attached herewith for your reference and record as Annexure 1 & 2 respectively. Further, as mentioned by your good self in notice that the alleged investment in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada was not disclosed in Schedule FA of the income tax return during the period from AY 2016-17 to AY 2020-21. I would like to reiterate that as I have neither invested my money nor am I having any beneficial interest, the same were not disclosed in the Income tax Returns of relevant assessment year. Thus the fact mentioned by your good self that I have failed to disclose the investments made in a Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Bermuda) in return of income does not hold good. It is further submitted that the same does not amount to non-disclosure of information about an asset located outside India in accordance with the provisions of section 46 r.w.s. 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. Therefore, in consideration of the above mentioned facts and documents, it is humbly submitted that the penalty of Rupees Ten Lakhs for each assessment year should not be levied for the period from AY2016-17 to AY 2020-21. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that even if any penalty is to be levied, the same should be restricted to Rupees Ten Lakhs for one assessment year only as your good self is alleging the same offence in multiple years. It is humbly submitted that levying a penalty on multiple occasions for the alleged offence would cause great prejudice to me, especially since I do not have any beneficial interest in the said asset. Further, I would be glad to provide any other details as may be required by your good self in this regard. I would like to once again clarify that I do not have any financial interest with Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada other than the life insurance policy of which I am neither a beneficiary nor an investor.\" 7. The AO though considered the above submissions of the assessee, but not found the same as acceptable and therefore, imposed the penalty of Rs.10 lacs by observing and holding as under: “8. Observations: The above submission of the assessee is carefully considered but not found acceptable because of the following reasons: - 4 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai 8.1. The residential status of the assessee is verified from return of income and it is found that the assessee is Indian resident from A.Y. 2011-12 to AY 2022- 23, Further, from the perusal of FA Schedule in the return of income filed, it is observed that the assessee had not disclosed his foreign investments of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (BERMUDA) in schedule FA of his ITR filed for AY 2016-17. The assessee has also not denied these facts 8.2. The Foreign Asset Schedule (FA Schedule) was introduced in the Return of Income. since A.Y. 2012-13 in Finance Bill 2012 in order to keep a track of the foreign assets and income generated thereon in foreign jurisdiction of Indian resident. Accordingly, the foreign assets/investments were required to be disclosed in the Schedule FA of the Income Tax Returns for AY 2012-13 onwards. A penal provision for not disclosing the foreign assets/investments in Schedule FA in ITRs u/s 43 of the Black Money Act, 2015 was introduced for non-disclosure of foreign assets since AY 2016-17 (the year of enactment of Black Money Act). Thus, the investment in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (BERMUDA) were required to be disclosed in the Schedule FA of the Income Tax Returns from AY 2016-17 onwards. 8.3. The assessee had submitted that the said life insurance policy was purchased by his relative and premium of the policy was also paid by him. He merely has a life insurance policy in his name for which he is neither a beneficiary nor an investor. He has neither invested any money nor having any beneficial interest therefore, the same were not disclosed in the income tax returns of relevant assessment year. In support, the assessee has relied upon the policy documents, certificate from the Sun Life Financial about name of the beneficiary, undertaking by Zahid Kothari, relative and US citizen stating that he has paid the premiums for the said policy. It is submitted that the investor and the beneficiary both are non-resident since the opening of policy. 8.4. From the plain reading of the submission and the policy documents, it is seen that the policy is in the name of the assessee. The policy document clearly mentions assessee's name as Participant. This fact has not been denied by the assessee also. The claim of the assessee that he is neither investor nor the beneficiary has no relevance. As the policy is in the name of the assessee, he is in duty to disclose the same in the FA schedule of return of Income. Thus, the submission cannot be considered as plausible explanation for not disclosing the investment in the FA schedule and thereby committing default within the meaning of the provisions of S 43 of the Black Money Act 2015. 8.5. Further, Chapter IV of Black Money Act, 2015 provides for penalties leviable in respect of various defaults mentioned within the meaning of provisions of Black Money Act, 2015. As per this Chapter IV, there are separate penalties provided for default u/s 41 & u/s.43 of the Black Money Act, 2015. Section 41 of the Black Money Act. 2015 provides for the penalty in respect of tax computed u/s 10 of the Black Money Act, 2015. Whereas, section 43 of the Black Money Act, 2015 provides for a penalty in respect of non-disclosure of Foreign Income & Assets under FA Schedule of Return of Income. Thus, the Act, itself provide two different penalties for different defaults. These penalties leviable u/s 41 & 43 of the Black Money Act, 2015 are independent of each other. Thus, even though no income is received or accrued to the assessed, he should have disclosed this asset in FA schedule of his return of Income. 5 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai 8.6. It is also relevant to rely upon the Board circular no.13 of 2015 dated 06.07.2015 wherein the clarification on tax compliance for undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets under Black Money Act, 2015 have been issued in the form of FAQs. In the said circular vide question no. 18, the Board had clarified as under: A person holds certain foreign assets which are fully explained and acquired out of tax paid income. However, he was not reported these assets in Schedule FA of the Income-tax Return in the past should be declare such assets under Chapter VI of the Act? Question No. 18. Since, these assets are fully explained, they are not treated as undisclosed foreign assets and should not be declared under Chapter VI of the Act. However, if these assets are not reported in Schedule FA of the Income-tax Return for assessment year 2016-17 (relating to previous year 2015-16) or any subsequent assessment year by a person, being a resident (other than not ordinarily resident), then he shall be liable for penalty of Rs.10 lakhs under section 43 of the Act. The penalty is however, not applicable in respect of an asset being one or more foreign bank accounts having an aggregate balance not exceeding an amount equivalent to Rs.5 lakhs at any time during the previous year.\" This Board circular has clearly clarified that in case of default of non-disclosure, there shall be penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. Thus, in the case of assessee the investments in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (BERMUDA) were not disclosed in the FA Schedule of the Income Tax Return for AY 2016-17 & therefore, shall be liable for Penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs u/s.43 of the Black Money Act. 2015. 8.7. Therefore, considering the facts & circumstances of the case of the assessee, legal position in view of the section 43 of the Black Money Act, 2015 as discussed in above paras, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs for Assessment Year 2016-17 for non-disclosure of foreign assets (investment in Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (BERMUDA)) in schedule FA of Return of Income for AY 2016-17. 8.8. Accordingly, I direct the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) under the section 43 of the Black Money Act, 2015 for AY 2016-17. 8.9. This Penalty order has been made with the approval of Addl.DIT (Inv.) FAIU - 1, Mumbai vide letter no. ADDL.DIT (Inv.) FAIU-1/BMA-Penalty-S.43/2022-23 dated 01.05.2023.” 8. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said penalty before the Ld. Commissioner and reiterated its claim, as made before the AO, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner on the same footing/reasoning as of the Ld.AO, ultimately affirmed the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 43 of the BMA. 6 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai 9. Thus, the assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before this Court. 10. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee in response to the show notice dated 17-03-2023 u/s 46 RWS 43 of BMA, by filling his reply before the AO, has made submissions that he is not holding any investment in said Insurance Company and neither he is a beneficiary nor he has invested any amount in such a company. Further, even otherwise, the Assessee does not have any investment nor any bank account abroad from where the premium could have been paid. No doubt the policy stood in the assessee’s name however, the premium of the same was never paid by the Assessee. In fact, premium was paid by his relative namely Sh. Zahid Kothari (US Citizen). The assessee in support of such claim, also filed an affidavit/undertaking of his relative Sh. Zahid Kothari, stating that the policy was taken in the name of the assessee, but the premium was paid by him only. The assessee in support of his claim, also relied upon the policy documents, certificate from Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada about name of the beneficiary, under taking by Mr. Zahid Kothari who has accepted having paid the premiums for the said policy. The Assessee also submitted that investor and beneficiary both are non-resident, since the opening of the policy. 11. The Ld. AO though did not refute such claim and documents respectively made and filed by the Assessee, however by consideration the following facts “ that the policy is in the name of the assessee and therefore, it is duty of the Assessee to disclose the same in FA Schedule of return of income and therefore, the submissions of assessee cannot be considered as possible explanation for not disclosing such investment in the FA Schedule and thereby committed default within the meaning of the provision of Section 43 of the BMA and CBDT vide Circular No. 13 of 2015 dated 06.09.2015 has clarified that in case of default of non-disclosure, there shall be penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs”, ultimately, levied the penalty of Rs.10 lacs u/s.43 of the BMA. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the levy of penalty. 12. We observe that recently this Court in the case of Mr. Akil Abbas Rassai Vs. DDIT/ADIT(Inv.)-1(1) FAIU {BMA nos. 1 to 7/M/2025 decided on 30-04-2025}, has also dealt with the identical case/situation wherein the insurance premium of the insurance policy was paid by the relative of the then Assessee, however, 7 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai without establishing the actual payment of premium paid and therefore, this Court directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed for not disclosing Insurance Policy in FA Schedule of ITR , however subject to verification by the AO qua purchasing and making payment of premium of insurance policy, by observing and holding as under: 18. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the AO had received the information to the effect that the Assessee had two investments, on account of insurance policies of two companies namely: (1) Zurich International Life Limited, UAE (2) RL 360 Life Insurance Company (Isle of Man), but has not disclosed such foreign assets in the Schedule FA, which was introduced in the return of income from A.Y. 2012-13 vide Finance Bill, 2012 and therefore in view of the provisions of section 43 of the BMA, the penalty proceedings u/s 43 of the Act were initiated and consequently the Assessee was show caused. The Assessee in response to show cause by filing his reply has claimed that life insurance policy from RL 360 Life Insurance Company (Isle of Man) though stood in the Assessee’s name, however, the said policy was procured/purchased by the brother in law of the Assessee (Mr. Zahid Kothari) in order to secure the life of his sister, as the Assessee used to carry foreign visits frequently and consequently all the insurance premiums have been paid by Mr. Zahid Kothari. The Assessee never paid any premium of such policy. Mr. Zahid Kothari has also submitted an affidavit in this regard before the AO. Further, the Assessee Mr. Zahid Kothari has also issued a certificate dated 31.10.2022 in this regard, which reads as under: “ZAHID KOTHARI 2705 North Center St, Unit 38, Hickory, NC 28601. Tel [phone]st October 2022 To whomsoever it may concern I, Zahid Kothari, aged 49 years, an inhabitant of the United States of America residing at 2705 North Center St. Unit 38, Hickory, NC 28601, hereby confirm that I am a brother of Mrs. Sakina Rassai, w/of Mr. Akil Rassai. I state that my sister got married to Mr. Akil Rassai sometime around the year 1995. Subsequently, it came to my knowledge that Mr. Akil Rassai was travelling frequently for work to various dangerous places across the world. Considering the uncertainty involved in the same. I felt that it was important for him to have a life insurance policy. Accordingly, sometime around the late 1990s/carly 2000s. I had decided to buy Mr. Akil Rassai a life insurance policy. The insurance premium for the same were also paid by me. The same was done by me out of natural love and affection for my sister in order to ensure her financial security. Whatever is stated above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and recollection. Yours truly, Zahid Kothari”. 19. We have given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances and rival contentions raised by the parties, concerning the life insurance policy obtained from RL 360 Life Insurance Company (Isle of Man) by Mr. Zahid Kothari as alleged. Admittedly, the provisions of section 43 of the BMA provides that where the 8 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai person is a beneficial owner or otherwise or in respect of which he was a beneficiary, or relating to any income from a source outside India, at any time, during such previous year, fails to furnish any information or furnishes inaccurate particulars relating to any such asset, then the AO may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. 20. In the instant case, as the Assessee has claimed that life insurance policy from RL 360 Life Insurance Company (Isle of Man) was taken by Mr. Zahid Kothari (brother in law of Assessee) in order to protect/save his sister, as the Assessee was used to visit foreign countries frequently and therefore there was probability of any mishappening /causality and the Assessee neither purchased this policy nor paid any premium for the same. If that is the case so, then in our considered opinion, the Assessee cannot be held as beneficial owner or beneficiary of the policy, as the Assessee’s wife was inducted as a beneficiary and therefore the liability on the Assessee for imposing the penalty, cannot be fastened. And therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, we are inclined to delete the penalty imposed qua insurance policy obtained from RL 360 Life Insurance Company (Isle of Man), however, subject to verification by the AO qua purchasing and making subsequent payment of the instant insurance policy. 21. Coming to second life insurance policy of Zurich International Life Ltd. – Branch (United Arab Emirates), the Assessee has claimed that since Assessee’s job had involved travelling to various countries and had also considerable risks and therefore, the said policy was bought by the Assessee in the year 2010. Somehow the said policy lapsed after 2014 and therefore the same ceased to be an asset and thus there was no requirement to disclose such asset in a FA Schedule of ITR. The Assessee, in support of such claim, has also filed a copy of summary of policy, according to which the same was started on 01.09.2010 and last premium was paid on 24.03.2014, thereafter, nothing appears from the policy document, “as to whether any subsequent premium has been paid or not”. In the policy, “status” of the policy is mentioned as “lapse” meaning thereby the policy lapsed due to non- payment of premium, which was lastly paid on 24.03.2014. Admittedly, the provisions for imposing the penalty u/s 43 of the BMA 2015, came into effect from A.Y. 2016-17 onwards and therefore policy if any lapsed before introducing the provisions for levy of penalty for not disclosing the asset, could not be made applicable. 22. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Srinjoy Bose vs. ADIT (Inv.) (2023) 150 taxmann.com 273 (Kol-Trib.) has also dealt with an issue wherein the addition has been made towards undisclosed foreign assets qua alleged investments in life insurance policies, which were discontinued/lapsed due to non-making the payment of the premiums. The Hon’ble Tribunal ultimately deleted the addition by taking into consideration the peculiar facts as well that premium payment to insurance policies, was discontinued. For brevity and better understanding, the relevant part of judgment (supra) is reproduced as under: “15. Now as far as the other limb of Section 2(11) of Black Money Act, 2015 is concerned about the disclosure of the said asset, we find that the premium payment to the two life insurance policies was discontinued from 2010 onwards. These policies commenced in the year 2000 and they were for a period of 21 years. In the middle of the term of the policy, the premium 9 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai payment was discontinued. As stated by ld. Counsel for the assessee, the assessee was of bona fide belief that the policies have been discontinued and the amount so invested have been forfeited. It was only during the FY 2018- 19 that the assessee came across the information of being eligible to lodge the claim for refund of surrender value which was followed by the necessary process and the surrender value was finally received in the bank account of the assessee held in India. Further, the assessee duly disclosed the amount so received in his income tax return and paid the taxes to the tune of Rs. 39,00,000/- thereon and based on such disclosure by the assessee, the alleged proceedings were carried out under Black Money Act, 2015. So, this fact also remains uncontroverted that the value of the alleged investments received by the assessee in India has already been subjected to Income tax and taxing the same amount under the Black Money Act, 2015 will tantamount to double taxation. Under these given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that since the necessary condition to hold a particular foreign asset as undisclosed foreign asset located outside India as provided u/s 2(11) of Black Money Act, 2015 remained to be fulfilled, ld. AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of Black Money (UFIA) And Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 to make an addition in the hands of the assessee at Rs. 1,08,01,726/-. We, thus, reverse the finding of ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition made in the hands of the assessee and allow ground nos. 1 to 5 raised by the assessee in the instant appeal.” 23. Coming to the judgment passed by the Tribunal in BMA no.1 to 3/M/2023 decided on 09.08.2023 as relied on by the Ld. DR, we observe that in this particular case, the Assessee along with her husband has made a joint investment in Global Dynamic Opportunity Fund Ltd. in the ratio of 40:60 respectively. The Assessee made the investments, out of funds transferred from India to HSBC Bank at Jersey. The AO had noticed that Assessee, though, declared interest income from foreign investments in A.Y. 2016-17, however, the said asset was sold and offered to capital gain to tax in A.Y. 2019-20 but the Assessee did not disclose such foreign asset, while filing return of income from A.Y. 2016-17 to A.Y. 2018-19 under Schedule FA and therefore the penalty was levied by the AO. Which was subsequently affirmed by Tribunal. However, this case is factually dissimilar to the aforesaid case referred to above, as in the instant case one life insurance policy as involved had already been elapsed before introduction and enforcement of the BMA and second life insurance policy was purchased by the brother in law of the Assessee and subsequent premiums have also been paid by him only and the Assessee was neither beneficiary nor benefited by such policy and therefore the judgment of the Tribunal in the aforesaid case , has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 24. As mentioned above, admittedly, the insurance policy obtained from Zurich International Life Ltd. – Branch (United Arab Emirates) has elapsed for non- payment of premium in the year 2014 itself and/or before the enactment and enforcement of the penalty provisions by BMA and therefore the penalty on this particular insurance is un-sustainable and thus we are inclined to delete the penalty imposed on this insurance policy of Zurich International Life Ltd. – Branch (United Arab Emirates). 10 BMA No. 12,11,10,9 & 8 Mr. Abba Abdulkarim Rassai 24.1. Thus, the penalty imposed, is deleted in the aforesaid terms. Resultantly, the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. 25. In the result, in view of our decision in BMA no. 01/M/2025, all the appeals under consideration stands allowed in the same terms. 13. In the instant case, it appears from the penalty order that the assessee in support of its claim has relied upon the policy documents, certificate from the insurance company qua name of the beneficiary and under-taking by Mr. Zajhid Kothari who is US citizen and relative of the assessee and paid the premiums for the said policy as alleged. The Assessee also established that investor and the beneficiary both were non-resident since the opening of the policy. Thus, on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the penalty under consideration is un- sustainable however subject to verification of premium paid by Mr. Zahid Kothai. Consequently, by following the judgment in the case of Mr. Akil Abbas Rassai {supra} and in line with direction as given in para 20 of the said judgement, we are inclined to delete the penalty, however subject to verification of premium paid by Mr. Zahid Kothari. Thus, the penalty is accordingly deleted in the aforesaid terms and appeal i.e. BMA 12/M/2025 filed by the Assessee, stands allowed. 14. In the result, in view of our decision in BMA 12/M/2025, all the appeals under consideration, stands allowed in the same terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Divya R. Nandgaonkar, Stenographer Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy./Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "