SHEFALI CHINTAN PARIKH,AHMEDABAD V. THE PR. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), AHMEDABAD

BMA 2/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Chintan Navnitlal Parikh and Shefali Chintan Parikh against the orders of the Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad, which were issued under Section 23 of the Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The appeals were related to the assessment year 2021-22 and concerned the alleged undisclosed foreign income and assets of the assessees. The Tribunal examined whether the orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, considering the detailed inquiries and verifications previously conducted by the DDIT (Inv.) and the submissions made by the assessees.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830587 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Black Money Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd., Gujarat Power Corporation vs. ACIT, Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT, Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT, CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd., CIT vs Vikas Polymers, CIT vs Honda Siel Power Products
• Laws Referred To: Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALPESH PARMAR; KAMAL DEEP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: TUSHAR HEMANI; KUSHAL FOFARIA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Transfer pricing; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition; Capital receipt; Period of limitation; Source of fund; Revision of order
• Section: 263; 131; 10; 139(5)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER BMA No. 1/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Chintan Navnitlal Parikh, Chitrakut, Behind Cargo Ford Motors, Off. C.G. Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN : AAUPP 1376 Q] Vs. Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad BMA No. 2/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shefali Chintan Parikh, Chitrakut, Behind Cargo Ford Motors, Off. C.G. Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN : ABDPP 0427 E] Vs. Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Kushal Fofaria, AR Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR) & Shri Kamaldeep Singh, Sr DR Date of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These two appeals have been filed by the separate assessee(s) against the respective orders passed by the Ld. Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. PDIT (Inv.)\" for short), both dated 30.03.2025, under Section 23 r.w.s. 10(3) of Black Money Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 2– (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as \"BM Act\" for short], for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. For the purpose of adjudication, we shall take BMA No.1/Ahd/2025 for AY 2021-22 as lead case. BMA No. 1/Ahd/2025 : AY 2021-22 4. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. PDIT(Inv.) has grossly erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s.23 of the Act on the erroneous ground that the impugned assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The Ld. PDIT(Inv.) has grossly erred in not appreciating that in order to invoke s.23, two conditions must be fulfilled viz. the impugned assessment order must be erroneous and that error must be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the present case, Id. AO has passed the reasoned assessment order after analyzing all details and therefore there was no error in the impugned assessment order so as to justify action w/s.23 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the very assumption of power u/s.23 of the Act is unjustified and bad in law and therefore, order u/s.23 of the Act deserved to be quashed. 3. The Ld. PDIT(Inv.) has further erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the view taken by the AO after thoroughly investigating the facts is a possible view and hence the proceedings are illegal and bad in law. 4. The Ld. PDIT(Inv.) has erred in law and on facts of the case in treating alleged income and capital distributions to the tune of Rs. 15,85,82,600/- as undisclosed foreign asset of the appellant. 5. Alternatively and without prejudice, the undisclosed foreign asset shall be charged to tax in the previous year in which such asset is acquired / earned and not during the year under consideration. 6. The Ld. PDIT(Inv.) has erred in not considering various facts, submissions, explanations and clarifications as given by the appellant and further erred in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 3– 5. The detailed facts of the case are that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of a discretionary trust named “Nutshel Trust”, established in Jersey on 03.12.1990 by Shri Navnitlal Chandulal Parikh, father of the assessee, Shri Chintan Navnitlal Parikh. The assessee had made disclosure of assets of Nutshell Trust, Jersey as Rs. 25,66,89,577/- (GBP 25,69,635 @ Rs.99.89) in which his 1/3rd beneficiary interest was computed and declared Rs.8,55,63,200/- as on 01.07.2015. A declaration u/s 59 of Black Money Act (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 made by the assessee on 29.09.2015 in Form No. 6 for tax compliance for undisclosed foreign assets. The said declaration has been approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax (TP), New Delhi. Accordingly, the assessee has paid tax of Rs.2,56,68,960/- and also penalty of Rs.2,56,68,960/-. The assessee had declared that he is one of the three beneficiaries of a Discretionary Trust, under the name, \"Nutshel Trust\", settled in Jersey, Channel Islands, by his father late Mr. Navnitial Chandulal Parikh on 03.12.1990. The assessee’s father, who was Indian resident, was the settlor of the above trust without having any beneficial Interest of his own or of his spouse. Assessee’s father, the settlor Mr. Navnitial Chandulal Parikh passed away on 03.03.2006. The trust was managed by an independent trusteeship company in Jersey and being a discretionary trust, the shares of each beneficiary is indeterminable and no decision-making powers in the management of the trust was available to the beneficiaries. Since there are only three beneficiaries, the assessee could have one third of the total distribution and the assessee had decided to disclose one third of the corpus valuation as assessee’s share. Similarly, the other beneficiary namely Shefali Chintan Parikh, Indian Resident, had also declared Rs.8,55,63,200/- and paid tax of Rs.2,56,68,960/- and penalty of Rs.2,56,68,960/-. 6. Further to the declaration of the assets on 29.09.2015 of Rs.8,55,63,200/- and payment of tax & penalty of Rs.5,13,37,920/-/-, Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 4– proceedings u/s 10 of the Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 were initiated by the way of issue of notice dated 06.03.2021 by DDIT (Inv.)(2)(1), Ahmedabad. 7. In response to the notice issued, the assessee filed reply on 23.03.2021 submitting the e-filing acknowledgement. The relevant part of the reply is as under:- “ ….. …… 7. The assessee would like to refer to the definition of undisclosed assets located outside India as defined u/s 2(11) of the Act. It reads as: \"Undisclosed asset means an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, held by the assessee in his name or in respect of which he is a beneficial owner, and he has no explanation about the source of investment in such asset or the explanation given by him is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer unsatisfactory; The assessee at this juncture would like to state that the beneficial interest in Nutshel Trust has been disclosed and taxes and penalty have been paid on the same. Also, in all subsequent years, due disclosure has been made in return of income as well as Schedule FA therein on a year-to-year basis. Considering a detailed explanation provided in the above paras, the question of this investment being characterized as \"undisclosed asset located outside India\" does not arise. Once it does not qualify as Undisclosed Asset, the proceeding initiated under this Act itself is uncalled for. Accordingly, it is prayed that proceedings may be dropped.\" Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 5– 8. The assessee submitted before the DDIT (Inv) that the amount of the benefit is one third share in the discretionary trust that has been valued as per Rule 3(1)(g) in the form of the unquoted shares of the company, Silverspire Inc., owned by Nutshel trust have been valued as per the Rule 3 (1) (c) and his assumed beneficiary share (one third) after including the above valuation of the Investment in unquoted shares of the company. The assessee has enclosed the computation. On 06.03.2021, the DDIT (Inv.) issued summons u/s 131 (1A) of the Income tax Act, (PB-94) directing the assessee to provide the details of income receipts pertaining to capital distribution from the Nutshel Trust, Jersey settled by Late Shri Navnitlal Chandulal Parikh on 03.12.1990 and the details of income and capital distribution from the Nutlshel Trust as recorded in the minutes of meeting of the trustees held at 43/45 La Motte Street, Helier, Jersey. The assessee replied on 14.06.2021. The reply of the assessee reveals that the Trust was settled in 1990 by Shri Navnitlal Chandulal Parikh who has passed away on 03.03.2006. Prior to that the assessee was completely unaware of the fact that he was a beneficiary in any foreign based trust. Post demise of his father, the assessee came to know about the existence of the trust settled by his father and about his beneficiary interest. Based on his beneficiary interest, considering the market value the assessee has file Form 6 on 29.09.2015 and paid the taxes and the penalty of Rs.8,55,63,200/- and Rs.2,56,68,960/- respectively as determined by the Commissioner of Income-tax (TP1). It was submitted that the assessee had no bank account opened abroad except bank account No.444------979 in the Bank of India, London Branch, 63 Queen Victorious Street. It was submitted that the assessee has never received any capital distribution and never had any knowledge about the transaction. 9. For the sake of ready reference, the Minutes of the Meeting dated 03.07.2007 enquired upon by the DDIT (Inv.) and the reply of the assessee dated 14.06.2021 before the DDIT (Inv.) are reproduced below:- Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 6– “NUTSHEL TRUST MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TRUSTEES HELD AT 45/45 LA MOTTE STREET. ST. HELIER JERSEY ON 3 JULY 2007 PRESENT DEREK V. LE BRUN } both representing Minerva Trust Company Limited- NEEL SAHAI } sole trustee Whilst reviewing the files it was noted that the Trustee Resolution Minutes covering the period inception 3 December 1990 to 24 May 2000 were missing from the Trust records. The Trustees decided that a Minute be completed ratifying the Trustees decisions from inception to the year ended 31 December 2006 TRUST DOCUMENT AND INITIAL SETTLED FUNDS IT WAS NOTED That, on 13 December 1990 a Settlement of Trust had been made between Navnitlal Chandulal Parikh (\"the Settlor\") and Kingsridge Trustee Company (Jersey) Limited (the Original Trustee\") now known as Minerva Trust Company Limited (\"the Current Trustee\"), creating a new trust known as the. \"Nutshel Settlement” utilising the under-mentioned assets as the \"Initial Property\": £101.00 (One Hundred and one pounds sterling) IT WAS RESOLVED that the Settlement Document signed by a Director and Secretary of Kingsridge Trustee Company (Jersey) Limited (\"the Original Trustee\") now known as Minerva Trust Company Limited (\"the Current Trustee\") and such Initial Property of the Settlement, be and is hereby adopted, accepted, confirmed, and ratified ADDITIONAL SETTLED FUNDS IT WAS NOTED That the settlement had received additional settled funds from the Settlor during the period Inception to 31 December 2006, which had not been minuted. IT WAS RESOLVED That, the acceptance of additional settled funds received from the Settlor under Clause 1. (b) of the Settlement Document during the period Inception to 31 December 2006 totalling the sum of GBP 3,810,003.00 (Three Million Eight Hundred and Ten Thousand, and Three Pounds Sterling) and USD 1,000 000,00 (One Million US Dollars) held upon the trust thereof, be and are hereby accepted, approved and ratified. INCOME DISTRIBUTIONS IT WAS NOTED That Income Distributions had been made to Chintan Navnitlal Parikh, a beneficiary of the Trust, during the period Inception to 31 December 2006 which had not been minuted. IT WAS RESOLVED Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 7– That, the Income distributions made to Chintan Naunitial Parikh, a beneficiary of the Trust, under Clause 4 of the Settlement Document, totalling of the sum of GBP 11,804 (Eleven thousand, Eight hundred and Four pounds sterling) be and are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified CAPITAL DISTRIBUTIONS IT WAS NOTED That the Capital Distributions had been made to two of the beneficiaries of the Trust, during the period Inception to 31 December 2006 which had not been minuted IT WAS RESOLVED That, the Capital distributions made to two of the beneficiaries of the Trust under Clause 7 of the Settlement Document, totalling of the sum of GBP 1,871,011 (One million Eight hundred and Seventy One thousand, and Eleven pounds sterling) be and are hereby approved and ratified Such Beneficiaries and total capital distributions made for the period are as follows- Chintan Naunatial Parikh GBP1,824,918.00 Shefali Chintan Parikh GBP 8,150.00 Uttara Chintan Parikh GBP 37,943.00 UNQUOTED INVESTMENT FLUX INTERNATIONA LSA IT WAS NOTED That the Trust had purchased a Panamanian company in the name of Flux International SA such purchase had not been minuted. IT WAS RESOLVED That, the purchase of the following company be and is hereby approved and ratified. Flux International S.A. 2 shares of US$ each £1.00 Registered in Panama (100% owned) LOAN WITH ELUX INTERNATIONA LSA IT WAS NOTED That the Trust had entered into a loan with Flux International SA such loan had not been minuted. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 8– IT WAS RESOLVED That, during the period Inception to the year ended 31 December 2000 the company entered into a loan with Flux International SA, which as at the year ended 3 December 1999 stood at CGBP 1,093,041 (One million, Ninety Three Thousand, and Forry One thousand pounds sterling) Such loan being unsecured, interest free with repayment date unspecified, The sum of £ 120,347 (One Hundred and Twenty thousand, Three hundred and Forty Seven pound sterling) was repaid by Flux International SA The sum of £830,000 (Eighty Three thousand pounds sterling) was assigned to Silver Spite Incorporated. The remainder of the loan in the sun of £142,693 (One hundred and Forty Two thousand, Six hundred and Ninety Three pounds sterling) was written off as unrecoverable. Subsequently Flux International S. A. was dissolved in November 2000 IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED That the above loan decisions and loan movements during the period, be and are hereby agreed, confirmed and ratified. UNQUOTED INVESTMENT SILVER SPIRE INCORPORATED IT WAS NOTED SPIRE That the Trust had purchased a BVI company in the name of Silver Spire Incorporated. Such purchase had not been minuted. IT WAS RESOLVED That, the purchase of the following company be and is hereby approved and ratified. Silver Spire Incorporated 2 shares of US$ each £1.00 Registered in BVI (100% owned) LOAN WITH SILVER SPIRE INCORPORATED IT WAS NOTED That the Trust had entered into a loan with Silver Spire Incorporated such loan had not been minuted. IT WAS RESOLVED That, during the period Inception to the year ended 31 December 2006 the company entered into a loan with Silver Spire Incorporated, which as at the year ended 31 December 2006 stood at GBP 1,589,023 (One million, Five hundred and Eighty Nine thousand, and Twenty Three pounds sterling) Such loan being unsecured, interest free with repayment date unspecified. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 9– IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED That the above loan decisions and loan movements during the period inception to 31 December 2006, be and are hereby agreed, confirmed and ratified. UNQUOTED INVESTMENT HENVILLE LIMITED INVESTMENTS IT WAS NOTED That the Trust had purchased a BVI company in the name of Henville Investments Limited. Such purchase had not been minuted. IT WAS RESOLVED That, the purchase of the following company be and is hereby approved and ratified Henville Investments Limited. 2 shares of US$ each £1.00 Registered in BVI (100% owned) LOANS WITH HENVILLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED IT WAS NOTED That the Trust had entered into a loan with Henville Investments Limited such loan had not been minuted. IT WAS RESOLVED That during the period Inception to the year ended 31 December 2006 the company entered into a loan with Henville Investments Limited which as at the year ended 31 December 2006 stood at GBP 5,994 (Five Thousand, Nine hundred and Ninety Four pounds sterling) and USD 1,000.000.00 (One Million US Dollars) Such loans being unsecured, interest free with repayment date unspecified IT WAS FURTHER RESOLVED That the above loan decisions and loan movements during the period Inception to 31 December 2006, be and are hereby agreed, confirmed and ratified. TERMINATION There being no further business the chairman declared the meeting closed Sd/- Derek V. Le Brun Chairman” Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 10– “From: Chintan Navnitial Parikh PAN: AAUPP1376Q Chitrakut, Behind Cargo Ford Motors. Off C. G. Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006, Gujarat, India. Date: 14 June, 2021 To, DDIT/ADIT (Inv.), 2(1), Ahmedabad. Respected Sir, Sub: Reply to your notice for summons u/s 131, Notice No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2021- 22/1032913294(1) 1. With reference to the ongoing proceedings in the case of the assessee, he was in receipt of the notice from your good self's office dated 13.05.2021, wherein your good self has asked to provide the manner of accounting of any income/receipts derived as beneficial interest in Nutshel Trust, Jersey in his books of accounts and Income Tax Returns of the respective years in which the income was accrued/received. Your good self has mentioned that on perusal of the minutes of the Nutshel Trust, it can be seen that the assessee is in receipt of income and capital distribution from the said Nutshel Trust during the period of its inception somewhere around the year 1990 till year 2006, which is for an entire period of about 16 years without specifying dates/years of the transactions as mentioned in the said minutes provided by them. 2. In connection with the same, the assessee most humbly submits that he has never been in receipt of any such income or capital distribution from the Nutshel Trust as mentioned in the said minutes which we have received from your goodself. The Nutshel Trust had been settled by the assessee's late father Navnitlal Chandulal Parikh, somewhere around the year 1990. The assessee was not aware of this Trust since its inception. Mr. Navnitlal Parikh had passed away on 03.03.2006. Prior to that, the assessee was completely unaware of the fact that he was a beneficiary in any foreign-based Trust, let alone Nutshel Trust. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 11– 3. Lately post demise of his father, the assessee came to know about the existence of such Trust settled by his late father and his beneficiary interest in the same. The assessee came to know that his family is the beneficiary of a Discretionary Trust named \"Nutshel Trust\". As per our understanding, the trust has always been managed by an independent trusteeship company in Jersey. This, being a discretionary trust, the share of each beneficiary is not determinable. Also, the beneficiaries have no decision making powers of whatsoever nature in the management of the trust. With an assumption that in the ultimate corpus when distributed, the assessee will have one third of the total distribution, the assessee decided to disclose one third of the corpus valuation as his beneficiary share. Thereby, with all bonafide intention and belief, the assessee has disclosed the detalls pertaining to the foreign asset through Form-6 (u/s 59 of Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") on 29/09/2015, wherein it has provided all the details regarding its share in foreign asset, ie. beneficial interest in Nutshel Trust - Jersey. and has declared the fair market value of all the undisclosed assets at Rs. 8,55,63,192/- A copy of Form-6 dated 29/09/2015 filed before the then Principle Commissioner/Commissioner DIT, International Taxation 2, along with the valuation basis for Rs. 8,55,63,192/- is attached as Annexure 1 to our submission dated 23 March, 2021. The assessee further submits that, with regards to Form 6 as explained in the above Para, the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 2 has duly assessed the application in Form-6 and has issued the intimation to the assessee, dated 27/10/2015, that it was eligible for declaration u/s 59 of the said Act on the total fair market value of disclosure of the assets to be Rs. 8,55,63,200/-. Your good self will appreciate that the Income Tax Office has intimated and accepted the fair market value as declared by the assessee in Form-6, of Rs 8,55,63,200/-. As per the directions issued in the order, the assessee has also duly paid off the tax of Rs. 2,56,68,960/-and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,56,68,960/-. The assessee further submits that the details as provided by the assessee has been accepted by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing 1). The office has also issued acknowledgement dated 13/01/2016, of undisclosed foreign asset through Form 7 to the assessee to signify its approval in relation to the same. All Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 12– said details has been furnished with your good self / office vide submission dated 23rd March, 2021. 4. It is further categorically brought to your good self's notice that the assessee has not received any such alleged capital distribution or income at any point of time in any of his bank accounts, nor had any bank account outside India, except for the distribution of corpus which took place after the declaration of beneficial interest and payment of tax and penalty under the Act as referred to hereinabove. The assessee has been maintaining the following foreign Bank account in his name, which was opened in the year 2015, and was duly disclosed in the return of income. Before opening this account, the assessee never had any bank account opened abroad. Bank Account No. Bank Name and Branch Detail 444115140002979 This is a joint A/c with the following holders: Shefali C. Parikh Krishnachintan C. Parikh Bank of India London Branch, 63, Queen Victoria Street, London - EC4N4UA 5.1 Assessee reiterates his humble submission that the trust has been settled by his Lt. father and he was never aware about such trust. Post demise of his father, he came to know about the existence of such Trust settled by his late father and his beneficiary interest in the same The assessee has with all bona-fide intention and as to buy peace of mind only, disclosed the details pertaining to the foreign asset through Form-6 (u/s 59 of Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and paid taxes even on capital receipt and paid penalty on the fair market value of all whatever assets been held by Nutshell Trust as at 1 July 2015. 5.2 Now, the assessee has been asked about the transactions so reported in the minutes for the capital distribution over a period from the inception of the trust till 31 December 2006. It is again reiterated that the assessee has never received such alleged capital distribution and didn't ever had any knowledge about such transactions. The Assessee doesn't have any relations with the Trustees. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 13– 6.1 It is requested not to take any adverse action in the case in as much as: ~ That the assessee has no knowledge about any such minutes noting ever before then the very first time such photo copy of the minutes been shared by your good self office most recently. ~ That there is no signature of either of his or any of his family members on the said Minutes, which can suggest that the assessee or his family were ever knowing about such transactions. ~ That nothing in the minutes suggests that the transaction were carried by the assessee or were in knowledge of the assessee ever. It may be verified from the banking details of the assessee, such alleged capital distribution has never been received by assessee. There can't be a distribution of any asset/ income, if there is no corresponding end who would have ever received it. ~ That the alleged meeting has been recorded post demise of the assessees father, in absence of the person who was a settlor and who only can authenticate or answer about said transaction so even allegedly happened ~ That ratification of the transactions without even existence of the person who was settlor, leads to a very questioning on the same. It also raises a question whether that all so alleged transactions were ever carried or not! ~ That just because something has been mentioned by a third party on some paper, photo copy of which has been shared with us, doesn't necessarily mean that such noting with respect to capital distribution is correct or reliable. In fact it is not even an evidence and cannot be made basis for any kind of addition. ~ That any open ended noting by anyone can't be considered to be an information or basis to be used against the assessee. ~ The Minutes are recorded by a single person Mr. Brun, whom the assessee has never met or dealt with and signatures of the persons present in the meetings are missing on every page. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 14– ~ That the alleged capital distribution noting are not even giving any specific knowledge about the transactions; information viz on which date said capital distribution happened, where happened, in whose presence happened, in which mode happened !! The noting in the minutes only gives a rough sketch for alleged capital distribution contended to have happened over a period of year 1990 to 2006, which itself raises a question on its authenticity. Noting which are not specific, are vague& distant can't be used against the assessee 7.1 The assessee would like to refer to the definition of undisclosed assets located outside India as defined u/s 2(11) of the Act. It reads as: \"Undisclosed asset means an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, held by the assessee in his name or in respect of which he is a beneficial owner, and he has no explanation about the source of investment in such asset or the explanation given by him is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer unsatisfactory;\" 7.2 The assessee at this juncture would like to state that the beneficial interest in Nutshel Trust has been disclosed and taxes and penalty have been paid on the same. Also, later on in all subsequent years, due disclosure being made in return of income as well as Schedule FA therein on a year to year basis. Considering a detailed explanation provided in the above paras, the question of this investment being characterized as \"undisclosed asset located outside India\" does not arise. Once it does not qualify as Undisclosed Asset, the proceeding initiated under this Act itself is uncalled for. Accordingly, it is prayed that the proceedings may be dropped. 8. The assessee hopes that from the above explanation, the position of assessee would be clear. In case your good self requires any further details/clarification the assessee will be highly obliged to furnish the same. Thanking You, Yours Faithfully, Sd/- Chintan Navnitlal Parikh” Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 15– 10. On 12.11.2021, there has been change of incumbent and proceedings u/s 10 of Black Money (UFIA) & imposition of Tax Act, 2015 has been initiated by DDIT (Inv.), FAIU, Ahmedabad and the proceedings continued. Owing to the explanation of the assessee, the order u/s 10(3) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 dated 02.05.2022 has been passed accepting the return of income filed by the assessee accepting the explanation offered by the assessee. 11. The DDIT (Inv.) issued another notice on 13.10.2023 asking the similar details which have been enquired into i.e. Trust in New Jersey, namely Nutshell Trust and Minerva Trust, for which the assessee reiterated the reply given earlier. The reply of the assessee is as under: - “Point No.1-Financials Interests in Minerva: a) The entity referred by your good self is actually named \"Minerva Trust Company Limited\", which acted as Trusteeship Company that managed \"Nutshel Trust\", about which the details are as follows. b) I was one of the three beneficiaries of a Discretionary Trust named \"Nutshel Trust\". The trust was settled in Jersey, Channel Islands by my late father Mr. Navnitlal Chandulal Parikh since 03/12/1990. Mr. Navnitlal Parikh, an Indian resident, was the settlor of the above trust without having any beneficial interest of his own or of his spouse, and passed away on 03/03/2006. The trust was since managed by an independent trusteeship company in Jersey. This, being a discretionary trust, the share of each beneficiary is not determinable. Also, the beneficiaries have no decision-making powers of whatsoever nature in the management of the trust. With an assumption that in the ultimate corpus when distributed, I will have one third of the total distribution, I decided to disclose one third of the corpus valuation as my beneficiary share. c) I have disclosed the details pertaining to the foreign asset through Form-6 (u/s 59 of Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") on 29/09/2015, Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 16– wherein I have provided all the details regarding my share in the foreign asset, i.e. beneficial interest in Nutshel Trust - Jersey, and have declared the fair market value of all the undisclosed assets at Rs. 8,55,63,192/-. A copy of Form-6 dated 29/09/2015 filed before the then Principal Commissioner/Commissioner DIT, International Taxation 2; along with the valuation basis for Rs. 8,55,63,192/-, is submitted for your perusal, attached herewith vide Annexure -2. d) It is further submitted that, with regards to Form 6 as explained in the above Para, the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - 2 has duly assessed the application in Form-6 and has issued the intimation to me, dated 27/10/2015, that I was eligible for declaration u/s 59 of the said Act on the total fair market value of disclosure of the assets to be Rs. 8,55,63,200/-. Your good self will appreciate that the Income Tax Office has intimated and accepted the fair market value as declared by me in Form-6, of Rs. 8,55,63,200/-. The referred order is submitted for your ready reference, attached herewith vide Annexure - 3. e) As per the directions issued in the order, I have also duly paid off the tax of Rs. 2,56,68,960/- and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,56,68,960/-. The said payment has been made on 23/12/2015 through Challan No. ITNS 284, the Challan ID No. being 02228332312201500285. Copy of challan is also submitted, attached herewith vide Annexure - 4. f) It is further submitted that the details as provided by me has been accepted by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing 1). The office has also issued acknowledgement dated 13/01/2016, of undisclosed foreign asset through Form 7 to me to signify its approval in relation to the same. A copy of Form 7 is attached herewith vide Annexure-5” 12. Subsequent to the completion of the assessment on 02.05.2022, the Ld. PDIT (Inv.), Ahmedabad issued show-cause noted dated 13.03.2025. The said show-cause notice reads as under:- “GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT PDIT (Investigation), Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 17– To CHINTAN NAVNITLAL PARIKH CHITRAKUT CHITRAKUT BEHIND CARGO FORD MOTORS OFF OG ROAD, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD 380006,Gujarat India PAN: AAUPP1376Q Dated 13/03/2025 DIN & Notice No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1074457252(1) Sir/Madam/ M/s, Subject: Proceedings u/s 23 of Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 - Notice Show Cause Notice In this case, as per information received, you and your family are beneficiaries of a Jersey structure with cash GBP 9,43,000. Additionally, it is gathered that you have a property in United Kingdom valued at approximately GBP 10,00,000. On further verification, it is found that the Jersey structure referred in the intelligence is actually a discretionary trust named \"Nutshell Trust”. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 10 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was initiated in your case. During the assessment proceedings, you have stated that you along with your family members - Smt. Shefali Chintan Parikh and Sh. Krishna Chintan Parikh had disclosed the details of foreign assets u/s 59 of the Act on 29.09.2015. Each member of your family disclosed Rs.8.55.63.200/- (GBP 8,56,545/-) and paid tax, penalty amount thereupon. Accordingly, Order uls 10(3) of the Act for the A.Y 2021-22 has been passed in your case on 02.05.2022 accepting the return of income filed by you. 2. The case records of the above proceedings were called for and examined. On examining the same, it is noticed that you have made disclosure of assets of Nutshell Trust, Jersey as Rs.25,66,89,577/- and your 1/3rd beneficiary Interest as Rs. 8,55,63,200/- as on 01.07.2015 and paid tax and penalty amount thereupon. However, on perusal of the details available with the department, you have received more Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 18– than the disclosure made u/s 59 of the Act. The details of foreign assets and receipts are as under Beneficiary Name Amount Type Chintan Navnitlal Parikh GBP 11,804 Income Distribution Chintan Navnitlal Parikh GBP 18,24,918 Capital Distribution Therefore, you have received total GBP 18,36,722 (Rs. 15,85,82,577/- using conversion rates as 1 GBP = Rs.86.34) till 31.12.2006 2.1 Further, for the subsequent period till closure of Trust, you have received direct benefits in the form of Capital Distribution from Nutshell Trust on various dates. The total amount (in INR) received in different AYs is as under. Assessee Name AY Date Amount Distributed Exchange Rate Amount (INR) Chintan Navnitial Parikh 2016-17 23.12.2015 $1,79,000 66.0586 Rs.1,18,24,489.40 2017-18 27.09.2016 £2,00,000 86.4068 Rs. 1,72,81,360.00 22.11.2016 £2,66,667 85.0472 Rs.2,26,79,281.68 03.03.2017 £1,66,667 81.8728 Rs.1,36,45,493.96 Therefore, you have received total GBP 7,53,675 (Rs.6,54,30,623/-) in A.Y. 2016-17 & Α.Υ. 2017-18. 2.1 A company named 'Silver Spire Incorporated’ was also owned by the Nutshell Trust and was mainly used for investing & holding foreign properties. The source of funds for this company has been nature unsecured and interest free loan received from time to time from Nutshell Trust. The source from which the company is deriving its income appears to be from bank interest and rental income of the properties. After the closure of Nutshell Trust (on 06.03.2018), the ownership of the company has been transferred directly to you and your family. The details of the property held by this company till 31.03.2016 are as follows: Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 19– S. No. Description of property Cost of Acquisition (in pound- sterling) Additional Repair Cost Type Year of acquisition 1. Flat 3 and Garage 9 Hamilton Hall, 119, Hamilton Terrace, St. John’s Wood, London, NW8 9QT 11,46,133 52,570 Leasehold Property 2012-13 2 Tescc Store, 141 Whitecross Road, Hereford HR4 OLS 8,22,414 Freehold property 2015-16 In view of the above data, the total value of the properties is GBP 20,21,117 (Rs.18,21,22,853/- using conversion rates as 1 GBP Rs.90.11). Accordingly, your 1/3rd beneficiary interest is GBP 6,73,705 (Rs.6,07,07,557/- using conversion rates as 1 GBP Rs.90.11). Further, it is observed from the para 2 of report supra that you have foreign assets amounting to Rs.28,47,20,757/- in form of capital distribution, Income distribution and immovable properties till the closure of the trust. However, you have disclosed beneficial interest of Rs.8,55,63,200/- u/s 59 of the Act. Therefore, beneficial interest to the tune of Rs. 19,91,57,557/- (28,47,20,757-8,55,63,200) has escaped the assessment. 2.2 Non-disclosure of Foreign Bank accounts in the Return of Income: It is further noticed that you held various bank accounts in the UK which were required to be furnished in the schedule FA of the Indian Return of Income. However, on perusal of filed return of Income, it is noticed that you have not disclosed the same while filing the return of Income. The same is summarized as under S. No. Name of the Institution in which the account is held Name of the Account Holder Account Number Details of account opening Disclosure requiremen ts for assessment years Non- disclosure 1 Barclays Pvt Clients International Ltd Minerva trust Company Ltd (Beneficial owner Chintan N. Parikh, Krishna Chintan Parikh 45373411 Prior to AY 2012- 13 AY 2016-17 till AY 2018-19 Non- disclosure for AY 2016-17 till 2018- 19 Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 20– 2 Barclays Pvt Clients International Ltd. Minerva Trust Company Ltd (Beneficial Owner Chintan N. Parikh, Shefali Parikh, Krishna Chintan Parikh) 67555200 Prior to AY 2012- 13 AY 2016-17 till AY 2018- 19 Non- disclosure for AY 2016-17 till 2018- 19 3 Barclays Pvt Clients International Ltd Minerva Trust Company Ltd (beneficial Owner Chintan N. Parikh, Shefali Parikh, Krishna Chintan) 73793737 Prior to AY 2012- 13 AY 2016-17 till AY 2018- 19 Non- disclosure for AY 2016-17 till 2018- 19 Therefore, you are an assessee in default as per the provisions of section 43 of the Act. 3. In view of the above, it appears that the disclosure provided u/s 59 of the Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 by you and your family members in respect of foreign assets and income are found to be in contradiction to the details offered under schedule FA of the disclosure requirements of Income-tax return for the period from A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y. 2015-16. 4 In view of the factual matrices stated in the preceding para, it is evident that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 10(3) of the Act for the A.Y 2021-22 on 02.05.2022 has been passed without proper inquiry, verification of the facts of the case and applying appropriate provisions of law. Therefore, it rendered that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of subsection 2 of section 23 of the Act. Needless to say, the assessment order dated 02.05.2022 is required to be revised by passing an order u/s 23 of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the undersigned proposes to pass a revision order u/s 23 of the Act. In case you have any objection to the proposed action u/s 23 of the Act, you are hereby given an opportunity to submit your written submission/explanation, if any, electronically on or before 20.03.2025. Kindly note that in case of non-compliance on Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 21– your part, the matter shall be decided on merits of the case and material available on record and no further opportunity shall be given to you in this regard. 6. Kindly note that your personal attendance or attendance of any other person authorized by you is not required. AMAL GARG PDIT (Investigation), Ahmedabad” 13. The assessee replied on 24.03.2025 to the show-cause reiterating to the points submitted before the DDIT (Inv.) which reads as under:- “Sub: Reply to your notice for summons u/s 131, Notice No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2021-22/1032913294(1) 1. With reference to the ongoing proceedings in the case of the assessee, he was in receipt of the notice from your good self's office dated 13.05.2021. wherein your good self has asked to provide the manner of accounting of any income/receipts derived as beneficial interest in Nutshel Trust, Jersey in his books of accounts and Income Tax Returns of the respective years in which the income was accrued/received. Your good self has mentioned that on perusal of the minutes of the Nutshel Trust, it can be seen that the assessee is in receipt of income and capital distribution from the said Nutshel Trust during the period of its inception somewhere around the year 1990 till year 2006, which is for an entire period of about 16 years without specifying dates/years of the transactions as mentioned in the said minutes provided by them. 2. In connection with the same, the assessee most humbly submits that he has never been in receipt of any such income or capital distribution from the Nutshel Trust as mentioned in the said minutes which we have received from your goodself. The Nutshel Trust had been settled by the assessee's late father Navnitlal Chandulal Parikh, somewhere around the year 1990. The assessee was not aware of this Trust since its inception. Mr. Navnitial Parikh had passed away on 03.03.2006, Prior to that, the assessee was completely unaware of the fact that he was a beneficiary in any foreign-based Trust, let alone Nutshel Trust. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 22– 3. Lately post demise of his father, the assessee came to know about the existence of such Trust settled by his late father and his beneficiary interest in the same. The assessee came to know that his family is the beneficiary of a Discretionary Trust named \"Nutshel Trust\". As per our understanding, the trust has always been managed by an independent trusteeship company in Jersey. This, being a discretionary trust, the share of each beneficiary is not determinable. Also, the beneficiaries have no decision making powers of whatsoever nature in the management of the trust. With an assumption that in the ultimate corpus when distributed, the assessee will have one third of the total distribution, the assessee decided to disclose one third of the corpus valuation as his beneficiary share. Thereby, with all bonafide intention and belief, the assessee has disclosed the details pertaining to the foreign asset through Form-6 (u/s 59 of Black Money (UFIA) and imposition of Tax Act, 2015, hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") on 29/09/2015, wherein it has provided all the details regarding its share in foreign asset, le. beneficial interest in Nutshel Trust - Jersey, and has declared the fair market value of all the undisclosed assets at Rs. 8,55,63,192/-. A copy of Form-6 dated 29/09/2015 filed before the then Principle Commissioner/Commissioner DIT, International Taxation 2; along with the valuation basis for Rs. 8,55,63,192/-is attached as Annexure 1 to our submission dated 23rd March. 2021. The assessee further submits that, with regards to Form 6 as explained in the above Para, the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 has duly assessed the application in Form-6 and has issued the intimation to the assessee, dated 27/10/2015, that it was eligible for declaration u/s 59 of the said Act on the total fair market value of disclosure of the assets to be Rs. 8,55,63,200/-. Your good self will appreciate that the Income Tax Office has intimated and accepted the fair market value as declared by the assessee in Form-6, of Rs. 8,55,63,200/-. As per the directions issued in the order, the assessee has also duly paid off the tax of Rs. 2,56,68,960/- and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,56,68,960/-. The assessee further submits that the details as provided by the assessee has been accepted by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing -1). The office has also issued acknowledgement dated 13/01/2016, of undisclosed foreign asset through Form 7 to the assessee to signify its approval in relation to the same. All said details has been furnished with your good self/office vide submission dated 23rd March, 2021. 4. It is further categorically brought to your good self's notice that the assessee has not received any such alleged capital distribution or income at any point of time in any of his bank accounts, nor had any Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 23– bank account outside India, except for the distribution of corpus which took place after the declaration of beneficial interest and payment of tax and penalty under the Act as referred to hereinabove. The assessee has been maintaining the following foreign Bank account in his name, which was opened in the year 2015, and was duly disclosed in the return of income. Before opening this account, the assessee never had any bank account opened abroad. Bank Account No. Bank Name and Branch Detail 444115140002979 This is a joint A/c with the following holders: Shefali C. Parikh Krishnachintan C. Parikh Bank of India London Branch, 63, Queen Victoria Street, London - EC4N4UA 5.1 Assessee reiterates his humble submission that the trust has been settled by his Lt. father and he was never aware about such trust. Post demise of his father, he came to know about the existence of such Trust settled by his late father and his beneficiary interest in the same. The assessee has with all bona-fide intention and as to buy peace of mind only, disclosed the details pertaining to the foreign asset through Form-6 (u/s 59 of Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and paid taxes even on capital receipt and paid penalty on the fair market value of all whatever assets been held by Nutshell Trust as at 1ª July 2015. 5.2 Now, the assessee has been asked about the transactions so reported in the minutes for the capital distribution over a period from the inception of the trust till 31 December 2006. It is again reiterated that the assessee has never received such alleged capital distribution and didn't ever had any knowledge about such transactions. The Assessee doesn't have any relations with the Trustees. 6.1 It is requested not to take any adverse action in the case in as much as: ~ That the assessee has no knowledge about any such minutes noting ever before then the very first time such photo copy of the minutes been shared by your good self office most recently. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 24– ~ That there is no signature of either of his or any of his family members on the said Minutes, which can suggest that the assessee or his family were ever knowing about such transactions. ~ That nothing in the minutes suggests that the transaction were carried by the assessee or were in knowledge of the assessee ever. It may be verified from the banking details of the assessee, such alleged capital distribution has never been received by assessee. There can't be a distribution of any asset/ income, if there is no corresponding end who would have ever received it. - That the alleged meeting has been recorded post demise of the assessee's father, in absence of the person who was a settlor and who only can authenticate or answer about said transaction so even allegedly happened. ~ That ratification of the transactions without even existence of the person who was settlor, leads to a very questioning on the same. It also raises a question whether that all so alleged transactions were ever carried or not! ~ That just because something has been mentioned by a third party on some paper, photo copy of which has been shared with us, doesn't necessarily mean that such noting with respect to capital distribution is correct or reliable. In fact it is not even an evidence and cannot be made basis for any kind of addition. ~ That any open ended noting by anyone can't be considered to be an information or basis to be used against the assessee. ~ The Minutes are recorded by a single person Mr. Brun, whom the assessee has never met or dealt with and signatures of the persons present in the meetings are missing on every page. ~ That the alleged capital distribution noting are not even giving any specific knowledge about the transactions; information viz. on which date said capital distribution happened, where happened, in whose presence happened, in which mode happened !! The noting in the minutes only gives a rough sketch for alleged capital distribution contended to have happened over a period of year 1990 to 2006, which itself raises a question on its authenticity. Noting which are not specific, are vague & distant can't be used against the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 25– 7.1 The assessee would like to refer to the definition of undisclosed assets located outside India as defined u/s 2(11) of the Act. It reads as: \"Undisclosed asset means an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, held by the assessee in his name or in respect of which he is a beneficial owner, and he has no explanation about the source of investment in such asset or the explanation given by him is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer unsatisfactory,\" 7.2 The assessee at this juncture would like to state that the beneficial interest in Nutshel Trust has been disclosed and taxes and penalty have been paid on the same. Also, later on in all subsequent years, due disclosure being made in return of income as well as Schedule FA therein on a year to year basis. Considering a detailed explanation provided in the above paras, the question of this investment being characterized as \"undisclosed asset located outside India\" does not arise. Once it does not qualify as Undisclosed Asset, the proceeding initiated under this Act itself is uncalled for. Accordingly, it is prayed that the proceedings may be dropped. 8. The assessee hopes that from the above explanation, the position of assessee would be clear. In case your good self requires any further details/clarification the assessee will be highly obliged to furnish the same. The assessee hopes the above submission will suffice for the specific aspect of point 2 of the notice. If any further information or explanation is required, the assessee would be pleased to submit the same. 4. Point No.2.1 of the notice: 4.1 It has been stated in the notice that beneficial interest to the tune of Rs. 19,91,57,557 has escaped assessment. The explanation for amounts stated in the notice on the basis of which the conclusion is arrived at is as follows 4.1.1 Amount of Rs. 15.85.82.577 (GBP 18,36,722) stated to be received from Nutshel Trust up to 31.12.2006, The explanation is submitted vide point 3 above as to why the amount cannot be considered as having been received by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 26– 4.1.2 Capital Distribution of Rs. 6.54.30.623 (GBP 7,53,675) from Trust 2015-16 onwards as mentioned in point 2.1 (first) of the notice is the full amount received against the disclosed amount of Rs. 8,55,63,200. The shortfall is on account of foreign exchange fluctuations and expenses incurred by the Nutshel Trust relating to administration, compliance and closure of the Trust. Once the amount of Rs. 8,55,63,200 is disclosed, any amount received by the assessee in India out of this amount cannot be considered additionally. 4.1.3 Rs. 6.07.07.557 stated as 1/3rd share of two properties - as mentioned in point 2.1 (second): These two properties are the same which are already included in the disclosure. In the disclosure, the computation of the amount of disclosure was based on the Balance Sheets of Nutshel Trust and Silver Spire which were submitted along with disclosure u/s. 59 of the Act. These two properties are mentioned in the Balance Sheet of Silver Spire. The Balance Sheets of Nutshel Trust and Silver Spire, are attached as per Annexure - A. Since the value of the two assets are included in the disclosure, the same cannot be considered additionally. It would be pertinent to state that the basis of disclosure of the assets including their fair valuation was done in compliance with the provisions of the Act and clarifications vide circulars, specifically the following point, which was relevant for the case of the assessee, considering that the settler of the Trust had passed away: The clarification to question 4 of the Circular No. 15 of 2015 titled \"Clarifications on Tax Compliance for Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets\" issued by the CBDT on 3rd September 2015. under which we were advised to make full disclosure, provided as follows: \"... Further, where the settler of the trust has passed away, the beneficiary of the trust may make a declaration in respect of his share in the assets of the trust. In case the beneficiary is a minor, his guardian may file the declaration on behalf of the minor. The assets of the trust shall be valued as per the Rule 3(1)(g) as in the case of AOP. In this case first the valuation of shares of the company is to be made as per rule 3(1)(c) and then the value of net assets of the trust shall be determined. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 27– Where the assets of the trust have been declared under Chapter VI of the Act and tax along with penalty has been paid, the value of the asset so declared shall not be chargeable to tax in the event of distribution of such assets to the beneficiaries.\" Based on the above provisions, the value of each assessee's share was worked out at Rs. 8,55,63,200 being 1/3rd share in total asset value of Rs.25,66,89,577 and the same was disclosed u/s. 59 of the Act and tax and penalty paid thereon. Considering the above facts, it is submitted that the overall assets held by the assessee is not Rs. 28,47,20,757 as stated in the notice and the amount of Rs. 8,55,63,200 disclosed by the assessee is to be considered as correct. In case your good self requires any further information or explanation in this matter, the assessee would be pleased to submit the same. 5. Point No.2.2 of the notice: 5.1 The notice mentions non-disclosure of three Foreign Bank accounts in the Return of Income. These accounts are stated to be held in the name of \"Minerva Trust Company Ltd. (Beneficial Owner Chintan Parikh, Shefali Parikh and Krishnachintan Parikh)\". In this regard, it is submitted as follows: 5.1.1 These accounts are stated to be held by the assessee, his wife Shefali Parikh and his son Krishnachintan Parikh, which is an absolutely false and incorrect statement. 5.1.2 These accounts were opened for the Trust by Minerva Trust Company Ltd., (\"Minerva\"), who were the trustees of Nutshel Trust. These accounts were opened by Minerva for the operations of the Trust. The assessee was neither ever a Trustee of the Trust nor even signatory for these Bank accounts. 5.1.3 The assessee was neither even informed about these bank accounts, nor their consent was taken to open or operate these accounts. These accounts were not operated under the instructions or knowledge of the assessee and were totally operated by the Trustees. The assessee has no details or records of these accounts. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 28– 5.1.4 In view of this, as per the clarification to question 4 of the Circular No. 15 of 2015, issued by the CBDT on 3rd September 2015, it is not required and is also irrelevant for the assessee to make any disclosure in the Return of Income for the respective years as mentioned in the notice Therefore, the assessee cannot be considered as an assessee in default as per the provisions of section 43 of the Act. 5.2 In this regard, it would be pertinent to note that throughout his life the assessee never had any bank account anywhere outside India till 2015. Then, an account with Bank of India, London Branch was opened on 3rd June, 2015, only for the purpose of making remittances under LRS, which is held by the assessee jointly with his wife Mrs. Shefali Parikh and his son Mr. Krishnachintan Parikh, Interest earned in this account is offered for taxation and the account is disclosed in Schedule FA in ITRs by each joint account holder. Another Bank account with ICICI Bank, London Branch was opened by the assessee later in July 2022, jointly with his wife and his son only for the purpose of dealing with LRS funds. Interest earned in this account is offered for taxation and the account is disclosed in Schedule FA in ITRs by each joint account holder. Apart from the above two, the assessee has never held any other bank accounts abroad. 6. Point no. 3 of the notice: In view of the above facts, it is submitted that there is no contradiction between the disclosure u/s. 59 of the Black Money Act and the details mentioned in Schedule FA of the Returns of Income for the years mentioned in the notice. 7. Point no. 4 of the notice; 7.1 It has been stated in point 4 of the notice that assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 10(3) of the Act for AY 2021-22 on 02.05.2022 has been passed without proper inquiry, verification of the facts and applying appropriate provisions of the law. 7.2 As regards the said assessment, it is submitted that the same is based on detailed inquiries made by DDIT through various notices and elaborate details submitted by the assessee to the DDIT on various dates as per table given in point 2 of this reply. These submissions were adequate for the Department for making an assessment. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 29– Accordingly, the order dated 02.05.2022 cannot be said to be passed without proper inquiry, verification of the facts and applying appropriate provisions of the law. 7.3 The said order, issued by DD/ADIT(Inv) FAIU Ahmedabad, clearly states as follows, which clearly establishes that the due processes were followed for assessment: \"The submissions made by the assessee are taken on record and perused. The authorised representative of the assessee has also appeared in person for the hearing. In light of the facts of the case, submissions, and the arguments advanced, the assessment under section 10 of the Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 is completed by accepting the return of income filed by the assessee.\" 8. In view of the above, it is submitted that there is no justification for considering the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of subsection 2 of section 23 of the Act. Therefore, it is prayed that the assessment order dated 02.05.2022 is not required to be revised by passing an order u/s. 23 of the Act. The assessee hopes that from the above explanation, the position of assessee would be clear. In case your good self requires any further details/clarification, the assessee will be pleased to furnish the same.” 14. Upon receipt of the reply, the Ld. PDIT(Inv.) passed order u/s 23(2) of the Act (page No. 18 of the order of the PDIT (Inv.)) holding that the order dated 02.05.2022 passed u/s 10(3) of the Act is completed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made and therefore it is deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The PDIT (Inv.) held that the accounts opened by the Trustee and Trust have not been disclosed by the assessee as he was the beneficiary of the Trust. The Ld. PDIT has also held that though the assessee had never been a trustee, he should have disclosed the foreign bank accounts where he held beneficiary interest. The Ld. PDIT further held that the assessee, “in his reply to the show-cause notice, has also mentioned about two more foreign bank Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 30– accounts 1) with Bank of India, London Branch (opened on 3rd July, 2015) and 2) with ICICI Bank, London Branch (opened in July, 2022). The AO is directed to verify whether the all these bank accounts are reported from time to time in Schedule FA of the Income-tax return filed by the Assessee for respective years or not and take suitable action as per the Act”. The Ld. PDIT concluded the order holding that Section 23 of the Act stipulates that upon examination of the records of any order passed under this Act, if the Ld. PDIT is satisfied that the order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to tie interests of the revenue then he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, revise the order. The Ld. PDIT (Inv.) also relied on sub-section (9) of section 23 whereby the order shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial if, (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which, should have been made; or (b) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board; or (c) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person under this Act or the Income-tax Act. 15. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PDIT (Inv.), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 16. During the hearing before us, Ld. AR relied upon the order dated 02.05.2022 and the proceedings conducted by the DDIT (Inv.), DDIT (Inv.)- FAIU, and the notices issued, enquiries conducted and the replies filed. On the other hand, Ld. DR, relied upon the information received, show-cause issued by the Ld. PDIT(Inv.) and the order passed by the of the PDIT (Inv.) u/s 23 r.w.s. Section 10(3) of the Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 31– 17. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. We have gone through the provisions of the Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act. Chapter II, Section 3 deals with “Charge of Tax”. The Black Money (UFIA) and Imposition of Tax Act is a taxing statute provides for levy of tax and penalty besides providing for prosecutions. It provides for tax @ 30% of undisclosed income and assets. Section 41 provides for levy of penalty a sum equal to three times the tax computed. 19. Disclosure of foreign income and assets Disclosure of foreign income/assets: There is no separate return which is required to be filed under the BMA, and that Act relies upon the compliance made under the IT return. The income-tax return contains a schedule for disclosing foreign assets (Schedule FA). In general, the following information is required to be submitted:- a) Various types of securities accounts e.g. debt instruments, custodial accounts etc. b) Financial Interest in any company, entity c) Details of immovable property, or any other capital asset located outside India d) Accounts in which the assessee is the signing authority e) Details of trusts created outside India whether as settlor, trustee or beneficiary. f) Any other income derived from source outside India 20. Any information pertaining to the foreign asset has to be filed in the revised Income-tax return u/s 139(5) of the Income-tax Act as per the existing Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 32– provisions. The provisions for further condonation of delay is as per the Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act, the powers vested in the Board. 21. Assessment and the procedures of the assessment under BM Act have been laid down in Section 10 of the Act. The process of assessment of foreign income and asset shall comprise of the following steps : – a) Notice to produce documents or evidence – Section 10(1) b) Inquiry in respect of undisclosed foreign income and assets – Section 10(2) c) Assessment of undisclosed foreign income and assets – Section 10(3) d) Best judgement assessment- Section 10(4) 22. After completion of the assessment, the provisions for revision of the assessment are detailed u/s 23 of the BM Act. The said provisions read as under:- “23. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.— (1) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may, for the purposes of revising any order passed in any proceeding under this Act before any tax authority subordinate to him, call for and examine all available records relating thereto. (2) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, pass an order (hereinafter referred to as the revision order) as the circumstances of the case justify, if he is satisfied that the order sought to be revised is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. (3) The Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may make, or cause to be made, such inquiry as he considers necessary for the purposes of passing an order under sub-section (2). (4) The revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner under sub-section (2) may have the effect of enhancing or modifying the assessment but shall not be an order cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 33– (5) The power of the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner under sub- section (2) for revising an order shall extend to such matters as have not been considered and decided in any appeal. (6) No order under sub-section (2) shall be made after the expiry of a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (7) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (6), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in respect of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. (8) In computing the period of limitation under sub-section (6), the following shall not be included, namely:— (a) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under section 7; or (b) any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court. (9) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, an order passed by a tax authority shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which, should have been made; or (b) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board; or (c) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person under this Act or the Income-tax Act. (10) In this section, “record” shall include all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner.” 23. In the backdrop of these provisions, the provisions relating to revision u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act and the parity thereof are examined. The provisions of Section 263 are as under:- Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 34– “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer …… , …… is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including,— (i) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment; or (ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or (iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section. Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) an order passed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988 by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall include— (i) an order of assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board in this behalf under section 120; (iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer; Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 35– (b) \"record\" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. …. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court.” Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 36– 24. On going through the provisions of Section 23 of BM Act and 263 of IT Act, we find that the provisions are pari-material, except at Section 263(1)(iii), wherein it provides for cancellation of the order and directing a fresh assessment. Whereas, in the case of BM Act, the revisionary authority is PCIT or the CIT/PDIT/DIT is precluded (shall not) from cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. Under BM Act, the PDIT can enhance or modify the assessment. 25. Thus, we find total parity of the provisions with regard to the revisionary powers of the PCIT/PDIT in both the Acts. In this background of the facts, we have examined as to:- a) Whether the order of the Ld. DDIT (Inv.) is erroneous? b) Whether the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue? c) Whether the interests of the Revenue are affected? d) Whether the order is revisionary or relooked? e) Whether the DDIT has passed the order without making inquiries or verification which should have been made? f) Whether the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instructions issued by the Board? g) Whether the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person under this Act or the Income-tax Act? are being examined with relevance to the provisions of the Act, facts on record and established jurisprudence. 26. The “record” relied upon by the Ld. PDIT (Inv.) i.e. the Minutes of a Meeting of the Trustees held on 03.07.2007 was very much available before Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 37– the Ld. DDIT (Inv.) who passed the order. The Ld. DDIT (Inv.) has issued notice on 03.03.2021 and examined at length. Further, on 06.03.2021, Ld. DDIT (Inv.) issued another notice to the assessee during the proceedings u/s 10 of the BM Act and confronted the assessee to the information in his possession. The assessee has submitted reply on 23.03.2021 on this issue before the Ld. DDIT (Inv.). It was submitted that the assessee was one of the three beneficiaries of a Discretionary Trust named \"Nutshel Trust\". It was also submitted that the trust had been settled in Jersey, Channel Islands by the assessee's late father Mr. Navnitlal Chandulal Parikh since 03.12.1990. Мг. Navnitlal Parikh, an Indian resident, was the settlor of the above trust without having any beneficial interest of his own or of his spouse, and passed away on 03.03.2006. The trust was since managed by an independent trusteeship company in Jersey. It was also submitted by the assessee that being a discretionary trust, the share of each beneficiary is not determinable. Also, the beneficiaries have no decision-making powers of whatsoever nature in the management of the trust. On 06.03.2021, the Ld. DDIT (Inv.) has issued summons u/s 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act and made specific enquiries about the assessee being the beneficiary of the “Nutshel Trust” and recipient of income and capital distribution during the period of inception of the Trust to 31.12.2006 as recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Trustees held on 03.07.2007. While issuing the reminder on 13.05.2021, the DDIT (Inv.) has reiterated that the information with the Revenue has been supplied to the assessee and the assessee has duly replied to the specific information about the capital distribution before the DDIT (Inv.) on 14.06.2021. The assessee has reiterated the entire facts before the DDIT (Inv.) vide his letter dated 14.06.2021. On 15.06.2021, the DDIT (Inv.) has issued another letter, for which the assessee has replied on 28.06.2021. Another letter was issued by the DDIT (Inv.), FAIU after the change of incumbent. Before the authorities, it was submitted that the assessee has disclosed assets worth Rs.8,55,63,192/- being 1/3rd of the total value of the assets of the Trust of Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 38– Rs.25,66,89,500/- (GBP 2569635) as valued as per Rule 3(1)(c). The disclosure was made on 01.07.2015 and the assessee has paid taxes of Rs.2,56,68,960/- and also equivalent penalty of Rs.2,56,68,960/-. 27. After due examination and enquiries, order u/s 10(3) of the BM Act has been passed by the DDIT (Inv.) on 02.05.2022, accepting the explanation. 28. On 13.01.2023, the DDIT (Inv.) issued summons u/s 131(1A) enquiring about the foreign assets, for which the assessee replied on 30.01.2023. The assessee replied in toto reiterating the submissions mentioned at para 11 of this order and submitted that the matters identical to those referred were already assessed by the DDIT (Inv.), FAIU and the assessment was completed by accepting the return of income filed by him. The similar issue has been taken up by the Ld. PDIT (Inv.) in his order u/s 23 of the BM Act. It is clear from the above record that the issue raised by the Ld. PDIT stands examined at length by different DDITs at different points of time, and accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. It is the same “record” the Ld. PDIT invoked to examine the already examined the issue. The issues raised by the Ld. PDIT in his order had already been enquired upon by the DDIT and the PDIT has failed to point any error or falsity in such enquiry. Does it can be found that Issue on hand was examined by DDIT (Inv.) at the original assessment stage. The issue on hand was threadbare examined at the original assessment stage, as is evident from the record. When an issue has been examined at the original assessment stage, it is not open to the Department to invoke revisionary jurisdiction. Where an issue has been examined at the original assessment stage, no interference is called for by PDIT u/s 23 of the Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 39– ➤ CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. - 309 ITR 67 (Guj) ➤ Gujarat Power Corporation vs. ACIT-350 ITR 266 (Guj) ➤ Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT - 221 ITR 155 (Guj) ➤ Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) ➤ CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) ➤ CIT vs. Vikas Polymers - 341 ITR 537 (Del) ➤ CIT vs Honda Siel Power Products - 333 ITR 547 (Del) 29. Further, it is settled law that if two views are possible as regards a particular issue and AO adopts either of two such views, then PDIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 23 of BMA (identical to S.263 of IT Act). Mere fact that different view could have been taken doesn't justify proceedings u/s 23 of BMA. Reliance is placed on the followings: ➤ Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT-243 ITR 83 (SC); ➤ Kwality Steel Suppliers vs. CIT-395 ITR 1 (SC); ➤Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union-263 ITR 645 (Guj) ➤CIT vs. D. P. Karia -266 ITR 113 (Guj); ➤ CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers - 259 ITR 502 (Guj); ➤ Sir Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCIT(E)-(2021) 188 ITD 38 (Mum); ➤ Torrent Pharmaceuticals, vs DCIT-(2021) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd): 30. Inadequacy of inquiry by Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under section 23 of BMA. Reliance is placed on the followings: ➤ CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.-332 ITR 167 (Delhi); ➤ CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma - 335 ITR 83 (Delhi); ➤ CIT vs. Vikas Polymers - 341 ITR 537 (Delhi); Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 40– 31. In the instant case, the DDITs has made sufficient enquiries and verifications which they should have made. Hence, the provisions of Section 23 (9)(a) are not attracted in the instant case. 32. We find that there was no infarction of the directions or instructions of the Board nor the order has been passed in accordance with any decision prejudicial to the assessee rendered by any High Courts or Supreme Court. Hence, the observation of the Ld. PDIT (Inv.) at para No.4.3.3 of the order holding that the order u/s 10(3) has been passed without making enquiries or verifications is found to be contrary to the facts on record and hence cannot be acceded to. 33. Further, we find that as per the CBDT Circular No. 15 of 2015 with regard to the options for declaration under Chapter VI of the Act, it was clarified that the settlor is the beneficial owner of the assets held under the trust. Therefore, declaration under Chapter VI of the Act may be made by such settlor in the capacity of a beneficial owner in respect of the assets of the trust. Alternatively, the trustee of the trust holding assets on behalf of beneficiaries may make the declaration of the assets of the trust in the capacity of a representative assessee. The trustee is eligible for declaration even where he is a non-resident. In respect of the assets declared under Chapter VI of the Act, immunity shall be available to the settlor, trustee and the beneficiary. Further, where the settlor of the trust has passed away, the beneficiary of the trust may make a declaration in respect of his share in the assets of the trust. ….. The assets of the trust shall be valued as per the Rule 3(1)(g) as in the case of AOP. In this case first the valuation of shares of the company is to be made as per rule 3(1)(c) and then the value of net assets of the trust shall be determined. Where the assets of the trust have been declared under Chapter VI of the Act and tax along with penalty has been paid, the value of the asset so declared shall not be chargeable to tax in the event of distribution of such assets to the beneficiaries. Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 41– 34. In the instant case, the assessee has valued the assets of the Trust at Fair Market Value as per Rule 3(1)(c) and offered the amounts before the Ld. CIT (TP), paid taxes thereof which has been subsequently assessed by the DDIT. The Ld. PDIT (Inv.), while alleging that the assessee received further more funds, has not brought anything on record as to where the funds have been parked. At the same time, the same information which has been relied upon has been a part of the record duly examined by the DDIT. Further, the Ld. PDIT has also held that the assessee had two foreign bank accounts, one with Bank of India, London and another with ICICI Bank, London and directed the Assessing Officer to verify whether all these bank accounts were reported in the Schedule FA. However, the facts on record clearly proves that these accounts have been duly disclosed in the Schedule FA in ITRs by the assessee. There was no need to invoke provisions of Section 23 to examine the record which are already part of the Schedule FA. Even on merits in the core points that the record clearly mentions that the Minutes covering the inception 9th December 1990 to 24.05.2020 were missing from the record and the Minutes have been redrawn in 2007 without the involvement of the assessee cannot be treated to allege the receipt of amounts by the assessee, especially when due enquires have already been made. The assessee has duly placed on record before the Revenue Authorities the emails dated 14.09.2015, balance- sheet of Trust on 01.07.2025, Minutes of the Meeting of the Trust dated 23.12.2015, which have been duly examined. The ‘record’ relied by the Ld. PDIT do not have any information as to date of income and capital distribution, where such income and capital distribution were made, and the mode of payments. The assessee consistently claimed that he never had any bank accounts outside India except those which have been declared. The Revenue has not brought on record any bank accounts which has been owned or operated but not disclosed by the assessee. The Minutes dated 03.07.2007, which have been examined by the DDIT (Inv.), now relied upon by the Ld. PDIT (Inv.), have not been signed by the assessee or other beneficiaries and Printed from counselvise.com BMA Nos. 1 & 2/Ahd/2025 Chintan Navnitlal Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) & Shefali Chintan Parikh Vs. Pr. DIT (Inv.) Asst. Year : 2021-22 - 42– were not in knowledge of the assessee. These have been recorded out of memory after finding that the Minutes were missing from the records, that too post demise of the assessee’s father who was the settlor of the Trust. The Ld. PDIT (Inv.) has also enquired about the properties in show-cause held by Silverspire which the assessee has clarified that these properties are the same which are already included in the disclosure based on the balance-sheet of Nutshel Trust and Silverspire Trust which were submitted along with disclosure u/s 59 of the Act. 35. Thus, we find that the order of the DDIT is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as per Section 23(2) and the order being passed having made due enquiries and verifications cannot be termed as prejudicial as per Section 23(9) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 36. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated …19.01.2026 *btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "