Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shriti Verma [2026] 186 taxmann.com 966 (Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dinesh Mehta & Vinod Kumar, JJ.
-
Puneet Rai, SSC, Rishabh Nangia, JSC & Ashvini Kumar, Adv. for the Appellant.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was subjected to assessments for the relevant assessment years on a protective basis in connection with the subject foreign assets. Subsequently, in proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, another Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee was not the beneficial owner of the subject assets.
In view of these observations recorded under the 2015 Act, the CIT(A) set aside the assessment orders passed under the 1961 Act. The Tribunal upheld the relief and set aside the protective assessments. Aggrieved by the order, the revenue filed the instant appeal before the High Court.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that the mere fact that the assessee’s mother took the plea that the property would vest in the assessee after her demise cannot change the legal position. In other words, simply because the assessee is likely to inherit such property, the addition cannot be made, that too in the year under consideration.
Further, the Court held that no substance was found in the revenue’s apprehension that the assessee’s mother could change her version and take the plea that the property belonged to her daughter, namely the assessee. Therefore, no interference was warranted under the Court’s limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A.
The post No Tax Addition for Mere Expectation of Inheriting Foreign Assets | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
