Based on the intelligence inputs It was found that during the period 2008 -2011 certain bank accounts abroad were maintained and operated by assessee and his wife . None of these accounts was reflected in the income tax return filed by the assessee or his wife . The assessee denied and did not volunteer any information abut bank accounts . Search and seizure operation was carried out on 17 th March 2016 on resident and commercial premises of the assessee.  During the search and seizure operations  , some of the material collected by the investigation wing  was confronted to the assessee the assessee denied the same . As per the BMA Act the notice was issued to the assessee on the alleged credit aggregating 999.75 crores in the undisclosed offshore company . The Assessee submitted that the BMA was not applicable to the assessee because it applied only from 1-4 -2016 on wards . i.e. the assessment year 2016 -17.  On 28 -3- 2019 as the assessment proceedings under the BMA were on the verge of completion , the assessee finally owned up the bank accounts and explained that all  the investments were made out of borrowings from the  same bank and that there was no collateral security given to the bank against the loan availed and that on maturity or redemption , the bank has take back the loan along with interest and credit the difference to the account which was actual gain . The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was the beneficial owner of off shore entity Gold Jewel Corporation British Virgin Island  (CJC-BVI ) and bank accounts maintained in the  UBS , AG, Singapore branch  ( UBS , AG Singapore)   and it was not a condition precedent for taxation under the BMA that the asset must continue to be held at the point of time when it was being brought to tax .  On appeal CIT(A)  accepted explanation  of the assessee so far as credit of amount received on redemption of investment was concerned  and was of the view that once it was not in dispute that the amount was received on account of investment held earlier, it could not be said that the amount was unexplained . However he confirmed the remaining  addition in respect of the balance amounts approving the line of reasoning adopted by the Assessing Officer. On appeals by the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer to the Tribunal .     The Tribunal held   that  relevant point of time for taxation, under BMA, of an undisclosed foreign asset is point of time when such an asset comes, to notice of Government, it is immaterial as to whether it existed at point of time of taxation, or, for that purpose, even at point of time when provisions of BMA came into existence. Thus, a bank account abroad or any unaccounted asset abroad, which did not exist as at point of time when BMA came into force, i.e. 1-7-2015, could be assessed under said legislation as what would be brought to tax would only be income clearly discernible from bank account in question and not value of asset itself .Further, a bank account, in whatever way it is described, is an asset in sense that it gives you ownership of credit balance, in books of bank, in that account . Therefore, an undisclosed foreign bank account per se can indeed be treated as an asset under section 2(11) of the Act . (AY. 2017 -18 )