KAMLESH BHALIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE- & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated
23.03.2022 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42,
Delhi, pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.
The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of
an amount of Rs. 45 lakhs under section 69A of the Act.
Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a non-resident
individual. Based on information received that the assessee had
ITA No.1187/Del/2023 AY: 2011-12
invested an amount of Rs.1,46,00,000/- in mutual funds in the
year under consideration, whereas, the assessee has not filed any
return of income, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment
under section 147 of the Act. Alleging that the assessee did not
comply with statutory notices issued under section 148 and
142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer treated the entire
investment of Rs.1,46,00,000/- as unexplained investment and
added back to the income of the assessee. The assessee contested
the aforesaid addition before learned first appellate authority.
Before the first appellate authority, the assessee furnished
certain evidences to explain source of the investment. The
evidences furnished by the assessee were forwarded to the
Assessing Officer for examination and submitting a report. After
considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer as well as
the evidences furnished before him by the assessee, learned first
appellate authority found that the investments in mutual funds
were made out of the funds available in the NRE Account of
assessee’s husband. However, while examining the bank account,
he noticed that on 30.08.2010, there were six remittances
aggregating to Rs.45 lakhs. When the assessee was called upon to
explain the source of those remittances, it was submitted that 2 | P a g e
ITA No.1187/Del/2023 AY: 2011-12
such remittances were received from Kuwait. However, observing
that assessee’s Authorized Representative admitted that no proof
of such bank account is available, the first appellate authority
added back the amount of Rs.45 lakhs as against the addition
made of Rs.1,46,00,000/- by the Assessing Officer.
Having considered rival submissions, we find that the
specific case of the assessee before the first appellate authority is
to the effect that the investments in mutual funds were made
from the funds available in her husband’s bank account.
Apparently, learned first appellate authority has accepted the
source of investment in mutual funds to be from the funds
available in husband’s bank account. However, while examining
assessee’s husband’s bank account, he found certain remittances
aggregating to Rs.45 lakhs, which according to him, remained
unexplained. Hence, he added the said amount to the income of
the assessee. When assessee’s explanation that investment made
in mutual funds was out of the funds available in husband’s bank
account has been accepted, we do not find any rationale behind
the addition made of Rs.45 lakhs representing certain remittances
appearing in husband’s bank account. Certainly, the assessee
cannot be hauled up for the remittances appearing in her 3 | P a g e
ITA No.1187/Del/2023 AY: 2011-12
husband’s bank account. If the department was not convinced
with the source of remittances appearing in the account of
assessee’s husband, it was open for the department to proceed
against the husband and not the assessee.
In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to delete the
addition of Rs.45 lakhs.
In the result, appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2023
Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Dated: 29th November, 2023. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
4 | P a g e
