Rs 24 crore in Singapore bank accounts, but taxpayer says ‘not mine’; ITAT says this

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has made this distinction in the case of Tarun Trikha, where the tax department had treated nearly Rs 23.91 crore in Singapore bank deposits as undisclosed foreign assets and sought to tax them under the Black Money Act (BMA).

The tribunal ultimately dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of the addition. A key factor was evidence that Trikha’s identity had been misused to create or operate business and bank accounts, along with the Revenue’s failure to bring sufficient evidence to establish that he actually owned the foreign accounts.

The ruling is important for taxpayers because it highlights the difference between information suggesting that an overseas asset is linked to a person and evidence establishing that the person actually owns or controls it.

What was the case about?

The case, DDIT (Inv.) 2(1), New Delhi vs Tarun Trikha, relates to assessment year 2021-22. The ITAT heard the Revenue’s appeal on June 3, 2026, and pronounced its order on August 11, 2026.

The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that Trikha, a resident of Karol Bagh, Delhi, was maintaining several foreign bank accounts in Singapore between January 2017 and February 2018.

The AO issued summons to Trikha under the Income Tax Act. After initially receiving no response, the department initiated proceedings under the Black Money Act and issued a notice under Section 10(1) of the law. Trikha subsequently submitted details of his income earned in India and his income-tax returns.

Trikha’s position was that he had no income source or financial interest outside India. But the tax department relied on information available with it about the foreign accounts.

Tax department treated Rs 23.91 crore as undisclosed foreign assets

The accounts identified by the tax department included accounts with United Overseas Bank (UOB), Singapore, and Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC), Singapore.

The CIT(A)’s order, reproduced in the ITAT judgment, records deposits of SGD 1,41,206.90 and USD 30,54,922.61 in the reported foreign bank accounts. The assessment ultimately valued the alleged foreign assets at Rs 23,91,64,565.91.

The AO concluded that Trikha had not disclosed these assets in his tax returns and had also not made a declaration under Section 59 of the Black Money Act.

He therefore treated them as undisclosed foreign assets under Section 2(11) of the BMA, valued them under Sections 4 and 5, and imposed tax at 30% under Section 3(1), along with interest under Section 40.

In simple terms, the department’s case was: the foreign accounts were linked to Trikha, they were not disclosed, and therefore the money should be taxed under the Black Money Act.

But Trikha disputed the most basic part of that argument — that the accounts belonged to him.

The identity theft claim changed the case

When Trikha challenged the assessment before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), he submitted evidence relating to an earlier criminal investigation involving the alleged misuse of his identity.

His sister had filed a complaint with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). Following the investigation, the Special Cell, IFSO, Dwarka, filed a charge sheet on December 31, 2021, against several individuals.

According to the findings reproduced in the ITAT order, the investigation found that these individuals had illegally shown Trikha as a director of TVI Express Holidays Pvt. Ltd. without his consent, resolution or permission.

This became a central part of Trikha’s defence.

He consistently denied holding the foreign accounts and said that his identity had been stolen and used in connection with them.

The CIT(A) examined the Special Court findings and the EOW charge sheet and accepted his argument.

It concluded that Trikha did not hold the foreign bank accounts or foreign assets and that the accounts referred to in the assessment order had been fraudulently held in his name.

The CIT(A), therefore, deleted the Rs 23.91-crore addition.

Why did the tax department challenge the relief?

The Revenue did not accept the CIT(A)’s conclusion and appealed before the ITAT.

The department argued that Trikha was connected with TVI Express Holidays and pointed to a CBI case involving the company and Trikha. It also argued that the company had opened overseas branches, including in Singapore, and maintained bank accounts there.

The Revenue further relied on the fact that information about the company had been shared by Singapore’s competent authority with the Indian tax authorities.

During the hearing, the departmental representative also argued that Trikha had not properly explained how his identity had been stolen and that the criminal proceedings relied upon by him did not have relevance to the BMA proceedings.

ITAT: Revenue did not bring enough evidence

The ITAT, however, did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the CIT(A)’s decision.

The tribunal noted Trikha’s financial history and observed that he did not have the means to make such huge investments outside India, based on his income-tax returns for the previous 10 years.

It also considered the Special Court decision relating to TVI Express Holidays and the economic-offence proceedings. The tribunal noted that the Special Court had discharged all the offences mentioned in the relevant complaint.

After considering the CIT(A)’s findings, the ITAT said it saw no reason to disturb them.

Importantly, the tribunal added that the Revenue “has not brought any cogent material to prove otherwise.”

The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

What does the ruling mean for foreign assets?

According to Anita Basrur, Partner, Sudit K Parekh & Co LLP, the ruling highlights that tax authorities cannot simply treat information received about a foreign asset as the final conclusion.

“The information available is to be treated as a clue to investigate the factual matter,” she said.

If a taxpayer denies ownership and produces evidence supporting that denial, the department needs to examine that evidence rather than reject it outright, she said.

“The authorities need to prove that the evidence is incorrect and that they have evidence to prove ownership to take the matter forward,” Basrur said.

That distinction is important because the ITAT case was decided on its particular facts. The tribunal did not say that information from a foreign tax authority is irrelevant. Instead, it found that in this case, the Revenue had not brought sufficient material to establish that Trikha was actually the owner of the accounts.

Is information from a foreign tax authority enough?

This is likely to be one of the most important takeaways for taxpayers with overseas assets.

Basrur said the ruling shows that information received from a foreign tax authority about a bank account in an Indian taxpayer’s name cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of ownership.

“The authorities need to back up the information received with corroborative evidence,” she said.

That could include examining the taxpayer’s financial history, records and ability to make the alleged investment.

In the Trikha case, the ITAT specifically considered his financial history and noted that he did not have the means to make such large overseas investments.

What evidence can establish beneficial ownership?

This is where the case becomes particularly relevant for taxpayers.

Simply showing that a person’s name appears on a bank account may not answer the question of who actually owns or controls the money.

According to Basrur, the tax department would need to establish that the taxpayer had control over the funds.

For example, if money was transferred from another entity, the department would need to examine whether the taxpayer authorised the transfer. The subsequent use of the money would also be important.

“The authorisation of the taxpayer allowing transfer of funds is very important,” Basrur said. “Also, the subsequent utilisation of funds is an important factor.”

In other words, the trail of money can matter as much as the name appearing on an account.

What taxpayers should take away

The ruling should not be read as a blanket protection for taxpayers who fail to disclose genuine overseas assets.

If a taxpayer actually owns a foreign bank account or other overseas asset, the Black Money Act can impose significant tax consequences for undisclosed assets.

The Trikha case is different because the taxpayer denied ownership from the outset and produced evidence supporting the claim that his identity had been misused. The CIT(A) accepted that evidence, and the ITAT found that the Revenue had failed to bring cogent material to establish the contrary.

For taxpayers, therefore, the broader lesson is straightforward: a foreign asset appearing in information received by the tax department can trigger scrutiny, but establishing that the asset actually belongs to the taxpayer remains critical.

And where ownership is disputed, the evidence — including the source of funds, control over the account, financial capacity, transaction trail and any independent findings relating to identity fraud — can become crucial.

The key point from the case

The ITAT did not give relief merely because Trikha said, “This is not my account.”

It gave relief after considering the identity-theft evidence, the Special Court proceedings, the taxpayer’s financial history and the absence of cogent contrary material from the Revenue. That is what makes this case significant.

Disclaimer: This story is based on the Delhi ITAT order in DDIT (Inv.) 2(1), New Delhi vs Tarun Trikha, BMA No. 15/DEL/2025, pronounced on August 11, 2026. The ruling is based on the specific facts and evidence of the case and should not be interpreted as a general exemption from disclosure or taxation of genuine undisclosed foreign assets under the Black Money Act. Readers should consult a qualified tax professional for advice specific to their circumstances.

Every financial journey has a turning point. What’s yours?

Financial Express is launching a new series highlighting real experiences with money, investments, and the taxman. Did a sudden tax rule catch you off guard? Did a piece of financial advice change your life? Your story could provide invaluable, practical lessons for thousands of fellow taxpayers. Share your experience with us. We respect your privacy: no stories will be featured without a direct conversation and your full consent. Thank you.