Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an NRI, challenged additions made by the AO under Section 69 for undisclosed interest income of Rs. 53,001/- and investment in Dubai property of Rs. 51,40,000/- for AY 2011-12. The assessee contended that the interest income was already declared and that supporting documents for NRI status and ITR were filed, but the authorities held that property acquisition documents were insufficient.
Held
The Tribunal found the interest income was duly offered to tax, thus no addition was warranted for it. Regarding the Dubai property addition, lacking sufficient details from both parties, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after affording the assessee an opportunity to present supporting documents.
Key Issues
Justification of additions under Section 69 for alleged undisclosed interest income and investment in a Dubai property, and proper consideration of assessee's supporting documents and NRI status.
Sections Cited
Section 69, Section 139, Section 271(1)(C), Section 144, Section 147, Section 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Anubhav Sharma
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-43, New Delhi dated 18.08.2021. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. That the CIT(Appeals) and Assessing Officer, Circle Gurugram, International Taxation, Gurugram have not acted in accordance with the law in making the assessment of the income of the assessee.
That the CIT(Appeals) and Assessing Officer were not correct in considering the Interest Income as undisclosed income of the Appellant u/s 69 of the Act as the same has already been disclosed while filing Return of Income u/s 139 of the Act and also Investment in Dubai of NRI as undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Act without considering the supporting documents of ITR and NRI status filed on 20/12/2018.
The CIT(Appeal) was unjustified and acted contrary to law in making an addition of Rs 51,40,000/- for purchase of property by NRI in Dubai and already declared interest 2 Vikas Kalia income of Rs. 53,001/- under Section 69 of the Act without providing for opportunity of being heard which was specifically requested during the course of proceedings for better representation of case and to provide any information and explanation which was wanting before adjudication as supporting documents are already filed on 20/12/2018 during assessment proceedings. 4) The AO has not applied independent application of mind not amounting to formation of belief and is bad in law.
The Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(C) be quashed being consequential to the illegal and impugned additions made.
The impugned order of Ld. ITO u/s 144/147 is bad in law and needs to be set aside in toto as nor notice u/s 143(2) of the act was issued.”
3. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
The assessee is living in Dubai since November 1995 and is NRI. During the Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee total income from all sources in India was below taxable limit and he has filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 declaring income of Rs.53,001/-. The documents related to NRI and ITR for Rs. 53,001/- filed u/s 139 were filed with AO on portal vide acknowledgement no.2012201811047372 dated 20.12.2018 which was not considered while framing order dated 26.12.2018 by the AO. On perusal of the return filed, we find that this interest income has been duly offered to tax, hence, no addition is called for on this account. 3 Vikas Kalia 5. The AO made addition of Rs.51,40,000/- on account of the information received by the ITO. The AO held that the assessee did not submit any documentary evidences and hence treated the same u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. CIT(A) also held that the appellant has failed to submit any supporting documents to justify the acquisition of property.
6. We have gone through the paper book submitted by the assessee containing 62 pages and also the order of the ld. CIT(A).
On going through the facts, we find that neither the assessee nor the revenue has brought on record the relevant details pertaining to the alleged acquisition of the property. Hence, it is strongly felt that ends of justice would be well served by remanding the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to afford an opportunity to the assessee and pass an order on merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 04/04/2024.