The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), while upholding the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A), confirmed the addition of Rs.1.96 lakh crores in respect of assessee Renu T. Tarani account with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA, Geneva.
The assessee, Renu T Tharani, an elderly lady, now in her late eighties, filed her income tax return, disclosing an income of Rs 1,70,800 for the relevant previous year, but subsequently, the investigation wing of the income tax department, as noted that the assessee is having a bank account with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse), SA Geneva. Based on this information, assessee’s paper-book, this case was reopened for a fresh assessment.
When the assessee was confronted with the information so received by the Assessing Officer, the assessee’s representative, vide letter wrongly stated to be letter dated January 9, 2014, in the paper-book, wrote to the Assessing Officer, “enclosed please find herewith a letter dated 14th November 2015 and 5th September 2011, which confirms that Mrs. Renu Tharani has neither been an account holder of HSBC nor a beneficial owner of any assets deposited in an account with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA, Switzerland, during the last 10 years”.
It was further stated that HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA has also “confirmed that GWU Investments Ltd was the holder of the account, and, according to their records, GWU Investments Limited used to be an underlying company of Tharani Family Trust for which Mrs. Renu Tharani was a discretionary beneficiary” and that “the Tharani Family Trust was terminated and none of the assets deposited with them were distributed to Mrs. Renu Tharani”.
It was further stated that “with this letter, as evidence, it is now very clear that Mrs. Renu Tharani does not hold an account with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA, either in Geneva or any other place in Switzerland, hence the base note issued by you is inaccurate as she does not have an account with HSBC Bank Geneva bearing number BUP_SIFIC_PER_ID_5090178411 or any other number”.
Consequently, the show-cause notice was issued by the AO. In response to the notice so issued, it was submitted by the assessee that the income tax return filed by the assessee on July 29, 2006, in Bangalore, be treated as a return in response to the notice under section 148. The assessee also demanded the reasons for reopening the assessment, which was eventually furnished to the assessee.
These objections, however, did not impress the Assessing Officer. He rejected the objections taken by the assessee and proceeded to frame the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia, on the ground that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law, but without any success. Learned also, inter alia, CIT(A) upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings and declined to interfere in the matter. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us.
The objections, however, did not impress the Assessing Officer. He rejected the objections taken by the assessee and proceeded to frame the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), inter alia, on the ground that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law, but without any success.
Learned also, inter alia, CIT(A) upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings and declined to interfere in the matter. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us.
The tribunal headed by the Vice President, Pramod Kumar while upholding the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A), confirmed the addition of Rs.1.96 lakh crores in respect of assessee Renu T. Tarani account with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA, Geneva.
