A costly mistake while filing an Income Tax Return (ITR) turned into a major relief for an employee after a legal battle. The individual was penalized ₹10 lakh by the Income Tax Department for failing to disclose details of foreign assets linked to an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Chennai later overturned the penalty, offering significant relief. The case highlights the seriousness of reporting foreign assets in tax filings and the potential consequences of omissions, even when they are unintentional or arise due to confusion about disclosure requirements.
According to available information, the employee, identified as Kumar, worked with Vedanta Limited and had received shares under an ESOP scheme from the parent company, Vedanta Resources PLC based in the United Kingdom. These shares were managed through Sanne Fiduciary Services Limited in Jersey. While filing his ITR for the financial year 2016–17 on February 22, 2018, Kumar failed to mention these ESOP/RSOP holdings under the foreign assets section. This omission was treated as a serious lapse by the tax authorities, triggering scrutiny and subsequent action under strict compliance rules.
Acting on the alleged concealment, the Income Tax Department imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh under Section 43 of the Black Money Act. The department maintained that non-disclosure of foreign assets amounted to a violation of the law. Even during the first level of appeal, the Commissioner upheld the penalty, reinforcing the department’s stance. Following this, Kumar escalated the matter to the ITAT Chennai. His legal representative, Chartered Accountant Prakash Sridhar Hegde, argued that the omission was not deliberate but occurred due to confusion regarding disclosure norms related to ESOPs and foreign asset reporting.
After reviewing the case, the ITAT ruled in favour of the employee, noting several crucial factors. The tribunal observed that the ESOPs formed part of Kumar’s compensation, on which Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) had already been applied. Additionally, taxes on the income were duly paid in the assessment year 2019–20. Considering these facts, the tribunal concluded that there was no intent to conceal income or evade taxes. On these grounds, the ITAT completely set aside the ₹10 lakh penalty, providing substantial relief and underscoring the importance of intent in such cases.