Tribunal held the notice issued under section 10(1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 to be jurisdictionally defective and violative of the principles of natural justice on account of simultaneous proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and Income-Tax Act, 1961.\u00a0 Tribunal examined the definition of \u2018undisclosed asset\u2019 in the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Impositions of Tax Act, 2015 and held that the assets which constitute part of income tax proceedings and have been assessed in such proceedings shall be excluded from the definition of \u2018undisclosed income\u2019. The Hon\u2019ble Tribunal also held that the doctrine of double prejudice will rescue such assessee who have been subjected to simultaneous proceedings for same assets\/income under the two legislations, i.e. the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and Income-Tax Act, 1961.<\/p>\n
Further, the Tribunal also observed that the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the findings of co-ordinate bench of the Hon\u2019ble Tribunal in the assessee\u2019s own case with regard to the same assets and the bank account, under the wealth-tax proceedings, wherein it was held that the trust in question was set up the relative and the assessee is not the sole beneficiary of the trust nor the substantial owners of the assets and thereby shifting from the co-ordinate bench\u2019s decision, violating the principle of approbate and reprobate. The Hon\u2019ble Tribunal also observed that ownership of the assets cannot be thrust upon an assessee. (AY. 2016-17)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 10(1) : Assessment-Notice under section 10(1) jurisdictionally defective and violative of the principles of natural justice on account of simultaneous proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and Income-Tax Act, 1961-Order was quashed. [S. 2(11). 4(3), 14, 59].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-7gk","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27920","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27920"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27920\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27921,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27920\/revisions\/27921"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}