ITAT Mumbai Deletes Additions Based On HSBC Geneva 'Base Note' Against Anil Ambani
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against businessman Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, holding that additions made on the basis of alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva were unsustainable in law. A Bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant...
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against businessman Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, holding that additions made on the basis of alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva were unsustainable in law.
A Bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted both substantive and protective additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2001–02 to 2006–07
The assessments were reopened on the basis of information received from the French Government under the Indo–France DTAA, relating to alleged undisclosed accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva, in the name of Canbar Holdings Corporation.
The Assessing Officer relied on a “Base Note”, referring to multiple Business Unit Partner IDs, and treated them as separate foreign bank accounts.
On this basis, the Revenue argued that the assessee, his brother Mukesh Ambani, and their late father Dhirubhai H. Ambani were joint beneficial owners of these accounts. The Assessing Officer accordingly made additions towards alleged opening deposits, peak balances, maintenance charges, and notional interest income, allocating one-third share to each.
The ITAT noted that the entire issue was already settled by coordinate benches in the cases of Late Dhirubhai H. Ambani and Mukesh D. Ambani, arising from the same Base Note and identical facts.
Therein the Tribunal held that the so‑called BUP IDs in the HSBC Geneva “Base Note” are only internal/customer identifiers and do not represent separate bank accounts, so additions made merely on the strength of these BUP IDs under section 69A were unsustainable.
It had held that the peak balance in Customer Profile No. 5091327690 (Canbar Holdings Corporation) had already been voluntarily offered to tax and assessed in the hands of Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani for AY 2006‑07, so it could not again be taxed in Anil Ambani's hands.
The Bench, in the case at hand, followed its own earlier decisions in the cases of Late Shri Dhirubhai H. Ambani and Shri Mukesh D. Ambani, where on identical facts similar additions based on the same Base Note/BUP IDs were deleted.
The Bench also rejected the Revenue's reliance on the earlier ITAT decision in Renu T. Tharani, holding that the said judgment was factually distinguishable, as that case involved clear beneficial ownership, unlike the present matter.
In view of the above, the Bench dismissed the appeals holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly appreciated the facts, evidence, and binding precedents, the ITAT dismissed all six appeals filed by the Revenue.
Case Title: DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai Vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani
Case No.: ITA No. 6228/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6229/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6230/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6231/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6232/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6233/Mum/2025
Appearance for Assessee: Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Jitendra Sanghvi
Appearance for Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadv (CIT DR)