9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 2,57,000 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Application of immunity under the Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 2,57,000 under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The primary issue revolves around the addition of Rs. 2,57,000 to the total income of the appellant by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO did not grant immunity to the appellant under the Foreign Exchange Immunity Scheme, 1991. The appellant claimed that the amount was received from the NRE account of Shri Vinod Goel and credited to his savings account. The AO, however, rejected this claim based on findings from the FERA authorities, which indicated that the funds in Vinod Goel's NRE account were sourced from illegal foreign currency purchases in the local market. The AO treated the sum as undisclosed income and taxed it under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, agreeing with the AO's findings and noting that the appellant was part of a foreign exchange racket. 2. Application of Immunity under the Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991: The appellant argued that the remittance received was eligible for immunity under the Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991. The appellant contended that no enquiries could be made into the nature, source, and purpose of the remittances received under this scheme. The appellant cited orders from the FER Appellate Board in support of his claim. However, the AO and CIT(A) did not accept this contention, relying on a Bombay High Court order which held that neither Vinod Goel nor any recipient from his NRE account could enjoy immunity due to the lack of a Currency Declaration Form for the foreign currency brought into India. The CIT(A) emphasized that the appellant's case was not covered by the FER Appellate Board's order, which only remanded cases back to the AO of the ED for reconsideration. Judgment: The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and material on record. The key question was whether the appellant was entitled to immunity under the Foreign Exchange Remittance Scheme, 1991, and if not, whether the deposit of Rs. 2,57,000 in his Dena Bank account was satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal examined the case of Vinod Goel in detail, noting that the Bombay High Court had dismissed Vinod Goel's review petition and found his story of bringing foreign currency into India without a declaration form to be unbelievable. The Tribunal highlighted that the definition of "recipient" and "remittance" under the Remittance of Foreign Exchange Immunities Act, 1991, did not cover Vinod Goel's situation. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's entitlement to immunity depended on whether the findings of the Bombay High Court in Vinod Goel's case had become final. If the findings were final, the appellant would not be entitled to immunity, and the amount received from Vinod Goel's NRE account would be taxable under Section 68 or 69. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to inquire into the finality of the Bombay High Court's findings and to decide the issue afresh based on this inquiry. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
