2007 (7) TMI 650 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in law in holding that the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs being the unexplained credit is not leviable? Held that - The Tribunal had given a factual finding that the assessee had sufficient sources in Sri Lanka to cover the remittances to India. The finding that the assessee has enough source, is a question of fact. The order of the Tribunal is not perverse and the concurrent finding given by both the authorities below is based on valid materials and evidence. In the case of CIT v. P. Mohanakala 2007 (5) TMI 192 - SUPREME Court the Supreme Court held that whenever there is a concurrent finding by the authorities below, no interference should be called for by the High Court. Under these circumstances, find no error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as, to warrant interference. In view of the foregoing reasons, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court and accordingly, the tax case is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained credit is leviable under the Income-tax Act, 1961?

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs as unexplained credit. The assessee, a citizen of Sri Lanka and a non-resident in India, had sold properties in Sri Lanka and remitted the proceeds to India. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 12,00,000 as unexplained credit, which was partly deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based on a CBDT circular applicable to migrants from Sri Lanka. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, prompting the Revenue's appeal.

The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of income and was not a migrant covered by the CBDT circular. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had produced documents supporting the sale of properties in Sri Lanka and had sufficient resources in the country. The Tribunal concluded that the conditions in the CBDT circular were met, and the Commissioner's decision to delete the addition was correct.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the assessee had enough sources in Sri Lanka to cover the remittances to India. The Court noted that the Tribunal's finding on the assessee's sources was a question of fact, supported by valid evidence. Citing precedent, the Court held that no interference was warranted when there was a concurrent finding by lower authorities. Consequently, the Court found no error or legal infirmity in the Tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of the tax case.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court highlighted the absence of costs in the judgment.