ACIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI vs. RAGHUBIR SINGH KOHLI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 254/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 January 2023AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the source of investments was clearly reflected in the assessee's NRE account, which was funded from foreign bank accounts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-resident Indian, made investments in Mutual Funds and FDs from his NRE account. The Assessing Officer added these investments under Section 69, stating the source was not provided. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding the source was duly reflected in the NRE account.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 69 based on additional evidence without a remand report, and if remittances from abroad to an NRE account can be considered income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 295(2)(mm)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Saktijit DeyDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Anshita Baharani, CA
Hearing: 10.11.2022Pronounced: 18.01.2023

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-43, New Delhi dated 28.12.2021.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,67,35,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of additional evidence without calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer which is in clear violation of Section 295(2)(mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962”

3.

The assessee aged about 83 years is a non-resident Indian staying in Dubai for the last 36 years running an Auto spares company in Dubai filed return of income declaring an income of 2 Raghubir Singh Kohli Rs.37,55,780/-. The assessee made investments in Mutual Funds and FDs during the year out of the NRE account. The complete details of Mutual Funds are reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee earned interest income from banks on term deposits held in NRO account and due taxes have been deducted by the banks. The AO held that the assessee has not given the details of source of investments and added these amounts of investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

The ld. CIT(A) found that the source of the amounts invested in Mutual Funds and FDs have been duly reflected in the NRE account of the assessee wherein the amounts have been in turn received from foreign bank account as per the RBI directions on Deposits and Accounts. The assessee has also attached the investment proof of the Mutual Funds and their respective source in the bank statement. Further, the ld. CIT(A) held that the remittance by the assessee from abroad to NRE account cannot be considered as income as per the Circular of the CBDT No. 5 in F.No. 73/A/2/69-IT(A-II).

5.

Since, the source of investments have been duly reflected in the NRE account, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) accepting the source of the investments.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/01/2023.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →