Assessing Officer received information under provisions of Exchange of Information article of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement that assessee was beneficial owner of bank account in Singapore which showed credit of Rs. 5.66 crores which Assessing Officer brought to tax as undisclosed foreign income and assets under Black Money Act. Assessee denied beneficial ownership stating though he had put his signature on account opening form of overseas bank account, but said account belonged to a foreign company, whose sole shareholder and director was his son. The assessee claimed that he had been named as beneficial owner only out of gratitude and respect and he had never contributed any funds either to trust or his son’s company and had also not received any money on account of said company. Tribunal held that mere account opening form where assessee was mentioned as beneficial owner of account mentioning details of his passport as an identification document, did not necessarily, in absence of any other corroborative evidence of beneficial ownership of assessee over asset, lead to taxability in hands of assessee under the Black Money Act. On the facts the Assessing Officer could not show any evidence that assessee was owner/beneficial owner of sum lying in overseas bank account and assessee having given an overwhelming evidence of fact that money belonged to his son, Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions in hands of assessee. Order of CIT (A) deleting the addition was affirmed. (AY. 2016-17)