MRS. SONAL ROMY MEHTA ,MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INV)2,2, MUMBAI

BMA 25/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Sonal Romy Mehta and Romy Bapalal Mehta against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 51, Mumbai, concerning the Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeals were related to the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (BMA), and issues under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was regarding the applicability and enforcement of the BMA concerning information acquired by the Income Tax Officer. However, before the tribunal could adjudicate on these issues, the assessee decided to withdraw the appeals, following the CIT (A)'s decision which had favored them, and no subsequent appeal by the Revenue Department against this decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782928 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Black Money Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH JOTWANI
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM BMA No. 25/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sonal Romy Mehta 2B, 11 Pala 220 CHS Ltd. Little Gibbs Road, Mumbai - 400006 Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), 2(2), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AADPM0051A (Appellant) : (Respondent) BMA No. 26/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Romy Bapalal Mehta 201/202, A Wing, Dharam Place Co-op. HSG Society, 100/103, N. S. Patkar Marg, Mumbai – 400007. Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), 2(2), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AADPM0051A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jotwani Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These captioned appeals have `been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 51, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 25 & 26/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Sony Romy Mehta & Romy Bapalal Mehta 2 Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2020-21. 2. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 25/Mum/2025 is a lead case. BMA No. 25/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2020-2-1 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s. 10 for A.Υ. 2020-21, while information came to the notice of the AO on 19.07.2013, which falls in A.Y. 2014-15. 1b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment made under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 ('BMA'), while on the date of acquiring information i.e., 19.07.2013, the BMA was not in force. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that, whether in A.Y. 2014-15 or in A.Υ. 2020- 21, the asset was not in existence. 3a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that that the date of acquiring information by the BMA Officer is relevant for the purpose of accessibility under the BMA and not the date when the Income Tax Officer had acquired information. 3b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the jurisdiction to the AO under BMA is assigned on the date on which concurrent jurisdiction is endowed on him and failed to consider that the same AO had under the jurisdiction as AO under Income Tax Act, had called for information and transferred the same to himself. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that once the BMA has come into existence, it is the date of information acquired under this Act, relevant, in place of information acquired under Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeals” 4. The assessee intends to withdraw the present appeal and had made a written submission dated 16.10.2025 to that effect which is herein reproduced for the ease of reference: Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 25 & 26/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Sony Romy Mehta & Romy Bapalal Mehta 3 “ 1. The Hon'ble CIT (A) granted full relief to the Appellant on the merits of the case, thereby deleting the additions made by the AO and accepting the Appellant's contentions that the Appellant is not the beneficial owner. 2. It is submitted that Appellant has still not been advised of any appeal filed by the Revenue Department against the order of the CIT (A) against the reliefs granted to the Appellant and consequently, the Appellant verily believes that the Revenue Department has accepted the order of the CIT (Appeals). In case, the Revenue Department had filed or subsequently files any Appeal with application for condonation of delay, the Appellant seeks liberty to take up and contest the technical / legal issues by way of cross objections. 3. In the light of the Department's apparent acceptance of the CIT (A) order, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant on the technical /legal issue in the present BMA no longer presently requires to be adjudicated upon. 4. Consequently, the Appellant does not wish to presently pursue the matter further before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 5. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue had nothing to controvert the same. 6. Upon perusal of the same, we hereby direct that the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. BMA No. 26/Mum/2025, A.Y. 2020-21 8. The findings recorded in BMA No. 25/Mum/2025 will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2025 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 25 & 26/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2020-21) Sony Romy Mehta & Romy Bapalal Mehta 4 Mumbai; Dated: 31.10.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "