Relief to Anil Ambani: ITAT deletes Addition based on BUP ID, Says it’s just Internal Identifier Not Bank A/c [Read Order]
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order which deleted substantive and protective additions made on account of deposits and interest income in an alleged foreign bank account.
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Business Partner Identification Numbers (BUP ID)s were not bank account but they were internal identifiers and upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) [CIT(A)] to delete protective additions.
Anil Dhirajlal Ambani (Respondent-assessee) for whom the case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961, based on information received from the French Government under the Indo-FranceDTAA.
The information pertained to an account in the name of "Canbar Holdings Corporation" with HSBC Bank, Geneva, and also alleged the existence of other accounts linked to the Assessee, Anil D. Ambani, through internal identifiers called BUP IDs.
The assessing Officer (AO) held that in the absence of clarity, the beneficial ownership of the amounts was to be allocated equally among the deceased father, Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, and his two sons, Shri Anil D. Ambani and Shri Mukesh D. Ambani.
The AO alleged that BUP IDs 5090260976 and 5090160983 were separate accounts and made additions for initial deposits (US$ 1,00,000) and annual maintenance charges (US$ 300) based on "information available in public domain".
Aggrieved by the ex parte addition by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the additions. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s order, the Revenue filed appeals to the ITAT.
The counsel for the assessee argued that the BUP IDs (Business Partner Identification numbers) were internal customer identifiers and not separate bank accounts. The assessee provided a detailed explanation that the ID starting with "5090" was the BUP ID (customer relationship number), and the ID starting with "5091" was the Customer Profile ID (akin to the bank account number).
The counsel also stated that the income related to the main account (Client Profile No. 5091327690, Canbar Holdings Corporation) had already been voluntarily offered to tax and assessed in the hands of Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani for AY 2006-07.
The counsel submitted that the additions for the opening deposit of US$ 1,00,000 and maintenance charges of US$ 300 were based on surmises and "public domain" information, without any factual ascertainment of whether the amounts were actually deposited.
The two-member bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) considered the detailed arguments and relied on the binding decisions of co-ordinate benches of the ITAT in the identical cases of the Assessee's father, Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani, and brother, Shri Mukesh D. Ambani.
The tribunal held that the BUP IDs reflected in the Base Note were merely internal identifiers/customer relationship numbers and did not represent separate bank accounts. The tribunal observed that the additions made by the AO merely on the strength of BUP IDs, internal identifiers, and presumptive opening deposits were held to be unsustainable.
The tribunal found no infirmity in the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the additions. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
