Home › Income-Tax Act › Yashovardhan Birla v. DCIT, (2021) 213 TTJ 761 / 206 DTR 137 (Mum.)(Trib.)

Yashovardhan Birla v. DCIT, (2021) 213 TTJ 761 / 206 DTR 137 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 17 : Wealth tax escaping assessment-Non-supply of reasons-Off-shore irrevocable discretionary trusts-Reassessment proceedings null and void owing to non-supply to the assessee of the reasons recorded-Off shore trust assets including immovable property in Singapore and London were not vested in the assessee and such assets held through offshore corporate vehicles are exigible only in the hands of such vehicles and not in the hands of the assessee-Deposits in offshore banks do not constitute an asset and hence are excluded from chargeability to tax under Wealth-tax Act-ITSC commission order is not binding on wealth tax proceedings. [S. 2(ea), 2(m)]

Tribunal held that the assessee is not liable for wealth-tax on funds lying in offshore bank accounts, financial interests in various companies, and properties held abroad.

The Hon’ble Tribunal also observed that that the ownership in foreign entities (in which assessee was alleged to have beneficial interest), were held by off-shore irrevocable discretionary trusts of which the assessee was one of the beneficiaries. Per the Tribunal, offshore assets held by the offshore irrevocable discretionary trust of which the assessee is one of the beneficiary, who happens to be bestowed with right to appoint /re-appoint the trustees, does not inherit the right or control over the trust or the entities controlled by the trust.  Tribunal also held that ‘assets’ u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, does not cover offshore assets of an offshore trust and accordingly the assessee is not liable for wealth-tax.  Tribunal rejected the Department’s reliance on order of the Hon’ble ITSC (involving the issue of beneficial ownership over properties in Singapore and London and other off-shore assets) in the assessee’s own case and clarified that the issue dealt by ITSC relates to income-tax and not wealth-tax. On the binding nature of ITSC’s order, Hon’ble Tribunal held that it is up to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the findings of ITSC depending upon the facts of the case. (AY. 2007-08 to 2013-14)