Information from ICIJ and FT&TR revealed Deepak Jain’s nominal shareholding (1/1000 shares each) in two BVI companies Alabama Assets Ltd. and Meadow Offshore Ltd incorporated jointly with a UAE resident, Mr. Alhammadi, who held 999 shares and infused funds. Bank accounts were closed by 2010–11, and MOU with Alhammadi was terminated in 2010. The AO invoked S. 10(3) of BMA, treating entire credits of ₹31.48 crore as assessee’s beneficially owned assets and levied penalty u/ss. 41 & 43. CIT(A) restricted addition to assessee’s proportionate holding (₹3.14 lakh) and partly deleted penalties. Both assessee and Revenue appealed.  The Tribunal held that the Act applies prospectively from 1.7.2015 and only to assets “held” thereafter. As the entities and accounts had ceased before 2015, no addition could be made. Reliance placed on Nirmal Jethalal Modi v. ADIT (Inv.) (2025)173 taxmann.com 400  (Mum)( Trib).   The Department had already initiated proceedings under the Income-tax Act (summons u/s 131, search u/s 132) even after the BMA came into force, and only later shifted to BMA. The Tribunal held this impermissible, applying the doctrine of election/approbate and reprobate. Once proceedings under the IT Act are consciously chosen, the Revenue cannot subsequently invoke BMA. Reliance placed on PCIT v. IT SC (2020  )420 ITR 149, Guj HC), Hiralal Alias  Hiranand v. Commr. of Customs  2013 SCC Online Cal 17620 dated 19.09.2013 (Cal HC), and CBDT Circular No. 13/2015 (2015) 374 ITR 97 ( St) (Q.12–16). (BMA Nos. 01–03, 06 & 07/Del/2025, dt.24.09.2025 .(AY. 2018–19