Tribunal holds that additions based solely on “Base Notes” and uncorroborated foreign account linkages cannot survive; confirms CIT(A)’s deletion of Section 69A additions
Meetu Kumari | Dec 10, 2025 |
ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeals Against Relief Given to Anil Ambani in HSBC Geneva “Base Note” Additions
The case concerns assessments framed against Shri Anil Dhirajlal Ambani pursuant to information received from French authorities regarding alleged undisclosed HSBC Bank (Suisse), Geneva accounts linked to the Ambani family. The Assessing Officer relied heavily on the so-called “Base Note” and related documents containing BUP Client IDs and alleged that the assessee was the ultimate beneficial owner of substantial deposits held in HSBC Geneva under entities such as Canbar Holdings Corporation. The AO reopened assessments and made additions under Section 69A across six years, treating the foreign bank deposits as unexplained money belonging to the assessee.
The CIT(A), after examining all documents, noted the absence of any legally admissible evidence connecting the assessee to the accounts and deleted all additions. Aggrieved, the Revenue carried the matter to the ITAT.
Main Issue: Whether additions under Section 69A, based solely on the “Base Note” and unverified BUP IDs linking HSBC Geneva accounts to the assessee, could be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence establishing ownership or beneficial interest.
ITAT Held: The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had failed to bring any independent, reliable, or legally admissible material to demonstrate that the assessee owned or controlled the HSBC Geneva accounts. The Bench noted that the Base Note itself was not conclusive evidence and that the AO did not establish any trail of funds, signatures, operation rights, declarations, or confirmations proving that the assessee was either the account holder or the beneficial owner.
The ITAT further observed that the AO disregarded critical clarifications offered by the assessee. Emphasising that additions under Section 69A require concrete proof of ownership, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)’s factual findings remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the deletions were affirmed, and all six departmental appeals were dismissed.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]
Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"
