The assessment rests on bank statements the department got from a foreign tax authority. They are uncertified and parts are blacked out. Do they prove anything?
Not by themselves. The Kolkata Bench allowed all three appeals and deleted additions of about Rs 2.52 crore based on four accounts with BNP Paribas, Geneva standing in the names of foreign companies. Copies of bank records that no bank has certified, with portions darkened beyond legibility, have to be corroborated by other evidence before they can establish that the assessee held an asset abroad; passport entries showed the assessee was not in Switzerland when the accounts were opened, and naming in an account opening form did not make him the beneficial owner.
Decided by the ITAT (Rajesh Kumar AM and Pradip Kumar Choubey JM) on 2025-01-07, reported as BMA Nos. 04, 05 and 06/Kol/2022, assessment year 2018-19 (ITAT, Kolkata Bench); no reporter citation printed on the page read. It bears on section BMA s.2(11), section BMA s.3, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.71, section Banker's Books Evidence Act s.2(8) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
This is the evidentiary case. It tells you what to demand when a Black Money Act assessment is built out of material received on an exchange-of-information request, and it shows a Bench putting the Department to proof rather than treating a sovereign source as self-proving.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The Assessing Officer received information through three channels - from the Swiss Federal Tax Administration on 8 May 2017 under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, from the Ministry of Finance of the British Virgin Islands on 7 June 2017, and from the Competent Authority of Panama on 26 October 2017 under multilateral exchange-of-information arrangements. The material concerned four accounts with BNP Paribas, Geneva standing in the names of Krims Investments Inc., Biscay Exports Ltd., Newington Group Trading Ltd. and Netstar Commercial Ltd., in which the three assessees were listed as beneficial owners. The Assessing Officer assessed undisclosed foreign assets of Rs 2,42,08,810 for assessment year 2018-19. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment, relying on the fact that the information had come from sovereign authorities, enhanced the figure to Rs 2,52,08,828 and dismissed the appeals. The assessees appealed. The documents produced were copies, none certified by the bank as true copies, and parts were darkened or blackened beyond legibility. The assessee's passport entries showed he had not been in Switzerland at the times the accounts were said to have been opened, although the bank's procedure required the physical presence of the account holder.
All three appeals were allowed (para 20) and the appellate order was set aside (para 18), the Bench finding that the assessees had no beneficial interest in the four accounts and no undisclosed foreign asset. BMA Nos. 05 and 06 were decided on the same reasoning as BMA No. 04. On the documents, the Bench held at para 14 that in the absence of authenticated copies of the original records it was for the Revenue to corroborate the information contained in unauthenticated copies with other evidence in order to establish whether or not the assessee held an asset outside India as a beneficiary. On beneficial ownership it held, taking the test from the coordinate Bench in Addl. CIT v. Jatinder Mehra, that the person said to be the beneficial owner must have a nexus, direct or indirect, to the source of the asset and must have provided the funds for it, and that the assessees' names in account opening forms, without corroboration, did not meet that test.
The Bench started from the state of the documents. None of the bank records was certified as a true copy and portions were blackened beyond legibility (para 8). It accepted that the Indian Evidence Act does not apply with full rigour to proceedings under the Act, and that the Revenue may rely on any piece of evidence, but drew on the scheme of the Banker's Books Evidence Act 1891 and the certificate it requires for admissibility, and held that unauthenticated copies need corroboration before they can prove the fact asserted (paras 12 and 14). The second strand was the passport. The bank's own procedure required the physical presence of the account holder for opening an account, yet on the dates on which the accounts were said to have been opened the assessee was not present in Switzerland, and the Departmental Representative could give no cogent explanation of how the accounts could then have been opened (paras 9 and 10). The third strand was beneficial ownership. Applying the coordinate Bench in Jatinder Mehra, mention of a person's name and passport details in an overseas bank's account opening form does not, without corroborative evidence of ownership or of his having provided the funds, make the balance taxable in his hands; and an account standing in a company's name is the company's absent proof of ultimate control and contribution (paras 15 to 17).
In the absence of authenticated copies of original records, it is for them to corroborate with other evidences
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot by themselves. The Kolkata Bench allowed all three appeals and deleted additions of about Rs 2.52 crore based on four accounts with BNP Paribas, Geneva standing in the names of foreign companies. Copies of bank records that no bank has certified, with portions darkened beyond legibility, have to be corroborated by other evidence before they can establish that the assessee held an asset abroad; passport entries showed the assessee was not in Switzerland when the accounts were opened, and naming in an account opening form did not make him the beneficial owner. This was decided by the ITAT (Rajesh Kumar AM and Pradip Kumar Choubey JM) and bears on section BMA s.2(11), section BMA s.3, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.71, section Banker's Books Evidence Act s.2(8) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as BMA Nos. 04, 05 and 06/Kol/2022, assessment year 2018-19 (ITAT, Kolkata Bench); no reporter citation printed on the page read. This is the evidentiary case. It tells you what to demand when a Black Money Act assessment is built out of material received on an exchange-of-information request, and it shows a Bench putting the Department to proof rather than treating a sovereign source as self-proving. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask for certified copies of the bank records and for the certificate contemplated by the Banker's Books Evidence Act; record the Department's failure to produce them.
The Assessing Officer received information through three channels - from the Swiss Federal Tax Administration on 8 May 2017 under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, from the Ministry of Finance of the British Virgin Islands on 7 June 2017, and from the Competent Authority of Panama on 26 October 2017 under multilateral exchange-of-information arrangements. The material concerned four accounts with BNP Paribas, Geneva standing in the names of Krims Investments Inc., Biscay Exports Ltd., Newington Group Trading Ltd. and Netstar Commercial Ltd., in which the three assessees were listed as beneficial owners. The Assessing Officer assessed undisclosed foreign assets of Rs 2,42,08,810 for assessment year 2018-19. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessment, relying on the fact that the information had come from sovereign authorities, enhanced the figure to Rs 2,52,08,828 and dismissed the appeals. The assessees appealed. The documents produced were copies, none certified by the bank as true copies, and parts were darkened or blackened beyond legibility. The assessee's passport entries showed he had not been in Switzerland at the times the accounts were said to have been opened, although the bank's procedure required the physical presence of the account holder. The matter was decided on 2025-01-07 by the ITAT (Rajesh Kumar AM and Pradip Kumar Choubey JM). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. All three appeals were allowed (para 20) and the appellate order was set aside (para 18), the Bench finding that the assessees had no beneficial interest in the four accounts and no undisclosed foreign asset. BMA Nos. 05 and 06 were decided on the same reasoning as BMA No. 04. On the documents, the Bench held at para 14 that in the absence of authenticated copies of the original records it was for the Revenue to corroborate the information contained in unauthenticated copies with other evidence in order to establish whether or not the assessee held an asset outside India as a beneficiary. On beneficial ownership it held, taking the test from the coordinate Bench in Addl. CIT v. Jatinder Mehra, that the person said to be the beneficial owner must have a nexus, direct or indirect, to the source of the asset and must have provided the funds for it, and that the assessees' names in account opening forms, without corroboration, did not meet that test.
The Bench started from the state of the documents. None of the bank records was certified as a true copy and portions were blackened beyond legibility (para 8). It accepted that the Indian Evidence Act does not apply with full rigour to proceedings under the Act, and that the Revenue may rely on any piece of evidence, but drew on the scheme of the Banker's Books Evidence Act 1891 and the certificate it requires for admissibility, and held that unauthenticated copies need corroboration before they can prove the fact asserted (paras 12 and 14). The second strand was the passport. The bank's own procedure required the physical presence of the account holder for opening an account, yet on the dates on which the accounts were said to have been opened the assessee was not present in Switzerland, and the Departmental Representative could give no cogent explanation of how the accounts could then have been opened (paras 9 and 10). The third strand was beneficial ownership. Applying the coordinate Bench in Jatinder Mehra, mention of a person's name and passport details in an overseas bank's account opening form does not, without corroborative evidence of ownership or of his having provided the funds, make the balance taxable in his hands; and an account standing in a company's name is the company's absent proof of ultimate control and contribution (paras 15 to 17). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the absence of authenticated copies of original records, it is for them to corroborate with other evidences" The decision followed or applied Addl. CIT v. Jatinder Mehra (2021) 128 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi Trib.) - followed, on what beneficial ownership under s.2(11) requires.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-01-07 and is reported as BMA Nos. 04, 05 and 06/Kol/2022, assessment year 2018-19 (ITAT, Kolkata Bench); no reporter citation printed on the page read. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section BMA s.2(11), section BMA s.3, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.71, section Banker's Books Evidence Act s.2(8), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. All three appeals were allowed (para 20) and the appellate order was set aside (para 18), the Bench finding that the assessees had no beneficial interest in the four accounts and no undisclosed foreign asset. BMA Nos. 05 and 06 were decided on the same reasoning as BMA No. 04. On the documents, the Bench held at para 14 that in the absence of authenticated copies of the original records it was for the Revenue to corroborate the information contained in unauthenticated copies with other evidence in order to establish whether or not the assessee held an asset outside India as a beneficiary. On beneficial ownership it held, taking the test from the coordinate Bench in Addl. CIT v. Jatinder Mehra, that the person said to be the beneficial owner must have a nexus, direct or indirect, to the source of the asset and must have provided the funds for it, and that the assessees' names in account opening forms, without corroboration, did not meet that test. It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section BMA s.2(11), section BMA s.3, section BMA s.10, section BMA s.71, section Banker's Books Evidence Act s.2(8) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Rajesh Kumar AM and Pradip Kumar Choubey JM. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Take every redaction and every illegible portion as a specific objection, in writing, before the Assessing Officer. Check the assessee's passport against the dates on which the bank says the accounts were opened, and put the bank's own account-opening procedure in issue. Where the account stands in a company's name, insist on evidence of who provided the funds and who controls the company before any question of beneficial ownership arises. Use the cross-examination: the Bench recorded that the Departmental Representative could not explain how an account could be opened without the assessee being present.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, following or doubting this order was located, and nothing was found to show whether the Revenue has appealed to the Calcutta High Court. That is the expected position for an order of January 2025. The order itself is consistent with, and applies, the Delhi Bench decision in Jatinder Mehra, which this library also holds. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order records a passage on beneficial ownership in the language of a reported headnote of Jatinder Mehra rather than in the Kolkata Bench's own words; the quotation given here is taken from a passage that is plainly the Bench's own. The three appellants are Tara Kejriwal, Uttara Kejriwal and Anurag Kejriwal; the passport point in the order is made in relation to the male assessee. The additions were made for assessment year 2018-19 on the footing that the accounts came to notice in that year - the order does not separately examine that premise, so it is not authority on the year of charge. The figure enhanced by the Commissioner (Appeals), Rs 2,52,08,828, is the operative one. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
All three appeals were allowed (para 20) and the appellate order was set aside (para 18), the Bench finding that the assessees had no beneficial interest in the four accounts and no undisclosed foreign asset. BMA Nos. 05 and 06 were decided on the same reasoning as BMA No. 04. On the documents, the Bench held at para 14 that in the absence of authenticated copies of the original records it was for the Revenue to corroborate the information contained in unauthenticated copies with other evidence in order to establish whether or not the assessee held an asset outside India as a beneficiary. On beneficial ownership it held, taking the test from the coordinate Bench in Addl. CIT v. Jatinder Mehra, that the person said to be the beneficial owner must have a nexus, direct or indirect, to the source of the asset and must have provided the funds for it, and that the assessees' names in account opening forms, without corroboration, did not meet that test.
TaxSphere, “Tara Kejriwal v DDIT (Inv.)”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/tara-kejriwal-v-ddit-bma-unauthenticated-bank-statements/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My name appears as beneficial owner on a foreign bank account opening form I never signed. Is that enough to tax the balance in my hands?
They have taxed me on shares in a struck-off offshore company I paid nothing for. Can there be a charge at all if the shares have no value under the rules?
They have taxed the same foreign asset on a protective basis in three earlier years and substantively in the year of the search. Can they keep all four alive?
I am named as one of several beneficiaries of an offshore discretionary trust my uncle settled. Does that make the trust's assets my undisclosed foreign assets?
