KAUSHIK NAROTTAM SONI,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal is filed by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 10/12/2025 for A.Y. 2019–20 on the following grounds of appeal:- 1 “**1. General Ground**

The order passed by the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai pursuant to directions of Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is passed mechanically without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed.

The Learned AO has erred in making addition under section 69 in respect of NRI Fixed Deposit of ₹1,50,00,000 standing in the name of the Appellant’s father, Shri Narotham Soni, wherein the Appellant was merely added as joint holder for legal and administrative convenience and thereby raised an incorrect tax demand of ₹2,59,84,000.

**2. Invalid Re-opening of Assessment**

The Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the assessment under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

• without satisfying mandatory jurisdictional conditions,

• without independent enquiry or application of mind,

• merely on borrowed satisfaction.

Therefore, the reassessment proceedings made under section 147 read with section 144C(13) are invalid and liable to be quashed.

**3. Addition under Section 69 – NRI Fixed Deposit**

**3.1** The AO erred in making addition under section 69 in respect of NRI fixed deposits of ₹1,50,00,000 in HDFC Bank belonging to Shri Narotham Soni who is the father of the Appellant, who is the legal and beneficial owner. (The Fixed Deposit is made out of NRI Bank A/c.)

The Appellant’s name was added only for convenience and not as investor or owner. The addition deserves to be deleted.

**3.2** The addition has been made ignoring direct, indirect and circumstantial evidences and solely on presumptions and borrowed findings and therefore liable to be deleted.

**4. Failure to Obtain Bank Information**

Despite repeated requests by the Appellant and his Authorised Representative, the Assessing Officer failed to exercise statutory powers to obtain information from HDFC Bank, as the matter pertained to old NRI fixed deposits and records were not readily available to the Appellant.

The AO ought to have determined real taxable income and not hypothetical income. The addition is therefore unjustified and addition be deleted.

**5. NRI Funds Not Taxable in India**

Both the Appellant and his father are Non-Residents. The fixed deposits were made out of funds transferred from NRE accounts.

Funds transferred from one NRE account to another NRE account constitute capital receipts arising from foreign income and are not taxable in India.

Therefore: • Addition under section 69 of ₹1,50,00,000 be deleted

• Tax levied under section 115BBE amounting Rs 1,17,00,000 be deleted.

**6. Interest and Penalty**

The AO has erred in charging:

• Interest under section 234A Rs 4,79,7000

• Interest under section 234B Rs 9,47,7000 be deleted

• Fee under section 234F Rs 10,000/-

The Appellant had no taxable income in India and was not liable to file return. Hence all interest and levy be deleted.

**7. Additional Evidence**

The Appellant prays that he may kindly be permitted to submit additional evidences to substantiate that the investment represents NRI fixed deposits not chargeable to tax in India.

**8. Right to Amend**

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

The assessee is an individual and a non-resident for the year under consideration. No return of income was originally filed. Based on information received through the Insight Portal regarding financial transactions, reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 147. The assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Ld.AO observed that, the assessee had term deposit of Rs.1,50,00,000/- with HDFC Bank. The assessee explained that the said fixed deposit belonged to his father and was created out of NRE funds, and that he was only a joint holder.

2.1. As no supporting documentary evidence was furnished during reassessment proceedings and the bank did not respond to notices issued u/s 133(6), the Ld.AO treated the said amount as unexplained investment u/s.69 and made addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.

The Ld. DRP confirmed the addition.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.1. It was further submitted that the fixed deposit was created out of funds held in NRE account, which represent foreign income and are not taxable in India. The Ld. AR submitted that due to practical difficulties in obtaining old bank records from Bhuj branch and the assessee being based outside India, the relevant bank statement could not be furnished during assessment proceedings. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the additional evidence placed on record, wherein the bank statement obtained on 27/03/2025 clearly reflects that the fixed deposit of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was created out of NRE account of the assessee’s father and that the assessee is only a joint holder. It was also submitted that a bank certificate has been obtained confirming that the father is the first holder and the assessee is only a joint/third holder.

3.2. It was thus submitted that the addition has been made solely due to non-availability of documents at the relevant time and without considering the true ownership of the investment. The Ld. AR prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of the additional evidences.

3.3. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that despite sufficient opportunities granted during assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the fixed deposit or establish that the same belonged to his father.

3.4. It was further submitted that the Ld. AO had also issued notices u/s 133(6) to HDFC Bank, which remained uncomplied with, and therefore the addition was rightly made based on material available on record.

The Ld. DR submitted that the additional evidences now filed were not before the Ld. AO and the assessee cannot be allowed to fill in the gaps at appellate stage without proper verification. However, the Ld. DR fairly submitted that if the Tribunal deems it fit, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. AO for verification.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal.

4.1. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication. The Ld. AO is directed to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee and verify the claim regarding ownership of the fixed deposit and source of funds, and thereafter 6 decide the issue in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall cooperate in the proceedings.

Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 30P/04/2026 SC Sr. P.S. SC Sr. P.S. SC Sr. P.S. SC Sr. P.S.

Copy to:

KAUSHIK NAROTTAM SONI, C/501 PADMAVATI APTS LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX,ANDHERI 1 WEST, MUMBAI-400058, MAHARASHTRA INT TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, ROOM NO 632,6TH FOOR ,KAUTILYA BHAVAN ,C-41 TO C-43 G 2 BLOCK ,BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE