The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted ₹2.25 crore in Black Money Act additions against a Delhi couple whose names were linked to foreign companies and bank accounts in the British Virgin Islands and Singapore. According to Mint, the ITAT Delhi H Bench, in an order dated August 6, 2026, dismissed the Income Tax Department's appeals against Nimit Rai Tiwari and his wife Ankita Rai Tiwari. The tribunal also deleted the remaining commission addition and consequential penalty against Ankita Tiwari. The ruling means the relief granted to the couple by the CIT(A) in the proceedings under the Black Money Act has been upheld by the tribunal, establishing important precedent for identity theft cases under the Black Money Act.
The case concerned two foreign companies—Suncell Holdings SA (SHSA), registered in the British Virgin Islands, and Sino Star Minerals Pte Ltd (SSMPL), incorporated in Singapore. As reported by Mint, Nimit Tiwari and his wife Ankita Tiwari were nominee shareholders in SHSA, holding 25,000 shares each at no par value, meaning no investment was required to acquire them. The shares were held at "no par value", meaning no investment was required to acquire them. SHSA had a bank account with BNP Paribas, which was closed on April 30, 2014, after the company became non-operational and failed to obtain business. The company was subsequently struck off by the local authorities on May 1, 2015. Nimit Tiwari was also a shareholder in SSMPL, incorporated on December 19, 2014, and held 150,500 shares. The tribunal noted that he had disclosed his shareholding and the company's bank account in his income-tax return for assessment year 2016-17. The tax department nevertheless initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Black Money Act and treated credits in the foreign companies' bank accounts as undisclosed foreign assets.
During proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the couple submitted additional evidence explaining the source of the money credited to the foreign companies' bank accounts. According to Mint, the SHSA account had received amounts from V.L. Sharma and Sandip Brahmdev Sharma, while SSMPL had received USD 1,50,000 from V.L. Sharma. The taxpayers submitted documents including the lenders' income-tax returns and bank statements. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and called for a remand report from the assessing officer. The AO accepted that the two lenders had the financial capacity to provide the loans. The CIT(A) therefore deleted the additions relating to the amounts received from V.L. Sharma and Sandip Brahmdev Sharma. The Revenue challenged this relief before the ITAT, but the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the loans were supported by evidence and that the AO himself had accepted the lenders' financial capacity.
The assessing officer made a total addition of ₹2,25,53,976, as reported by Mint. This included ₹1,27,97,370 in the hands of each spouse, representing 50% of credits in SHSA, and ₹97,56,615 in Nimit Tiwari's hands for the credit in SSMPL. However, the ITAT took a different view after examining the same bank statement. The tribunal noted that the tax authorities had considered the USD 32,565 credit in SHSA's bank account but overlooked debit entries totalling about USD 46,354 in the account. After considering both the credits and debits, the account showed a negative balance of USD 13,789. The tribunal said that the company had therefore incurred a loss rather than generated positive income from the transactions. It consequently deleted the remaining commission-income addition as well. The ITAT held that there was no financial asset left in SHSA requiring disclosure after the company had been struck off, and noted that the Revenue had effectively considered only the credit entries while overlooking the corresponding debits in the same bank statement.
Since the couple succeeded on the merits, the tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue, allowed the taxpayers' cross-objections and deleted the consequential penalty. The additional jurisdictional grounds raised by the taxpayers were not adjudicated because they had already obtained relief on merits. As per Mint, the Delhi ITAT passed its order on August 6, 2026 in Addl. CIT, Delhi vs Nimit Rai Tiwari and Ankita Rai Tiwari, BMA No. 15/Del/2025, for assessment year 2021-22. The case establishes important precedent for Black Money Act cases, particularly regarding the need for adequate material establishing that taxpayers actually owned, beneficially held or were otherwise connected with alleged undisclosed foreign assets. The tribunal found that there must be adequate material establishing that the taxpayer actually owned, beneficially held or was otherwise connected with the alleged undisclosed foreign asset, and that the underlying liability must be established before treating amounts as undisclosed income.
