Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 565 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice issued u/s 148A(b) - Unexplained foreign remittances and time deposits - petitioner is a resident of Canada, and was in India consecutively for 31 days - HELD THAT - As petitioner has attempted to explain the remittance by alluding to the fact that this was nothing but interest earned by him against savings account FDR-NRO maintained with ICICI Bank. For time deposit petitioner has indicated that the amount was deposited in FDR-NRE account on 05.10.2017, which matured on 05.10.2018. It is the petitioner s assertion that the interest earned and the matured amount was re-invested on 08.10.2018 in the FDR-NRE account, once again with ICICI Bank. Petitioner also takes stand that he had no other source of income, apart from interest earned from bank interest. As the third transaction is concerned, the petitioner/assessee appears to take the position that he would want the AO to give detailed break-up of the amount involved. It concerns high value (specified) transactions which are required to be reported by the concerned person in terms of the provisions of Section 285BA(1) of the Act. AO, however, has given short shift to the reply filed by the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been put to Mr Sunil Agarwal. As the best course forward would be that the AO be directed to reexamine the matter in the light of the reply filed by the petitioner and material placed by him, accordingly, the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and the consequential notice issued u/s 148 of the Act are set aside. AO is directed to carry out a de novo exercise. As before AO proceeds further, he will furnish a break-up of the high value (specified) transactions which, according to him, the petitioner was required to report under Section 285BA(1) of the Act.
Issues involved:
The legal judgment concerns a writ petition filed for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with a consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Details of the judgment: 1. The petitioner, a resident of Canada, was in India for 31 days during the relevant AY but did not file a return, claiming that his income was below the threshold for filing. The Assessing Officer (AO) flagged transactions totaling Rs. 4,10,30,719 based on information from the Insight Portal. 2. The petitioner responded to the notice, explaining transactions flagged by the AO, including interest earned on bank deposits, time deposits, and a statement of reportable account. The petitioner maintained that the interest earned was reinvested in bank deposits and had no other income sources. 3. The AO did not fully consider the petitioner's response, prompting the Court to set aside the order dated 15.04.2023 and the consequential notice dated 16.04.2023. The AO was directed to reexamine the matter, provide a detailed break-up of the high-value transactions, and accord a personal hearing to the petitioner or his representative. 4. Before proceeding further, the AO must furnish a break-up of the specified transactions amounting to Rs. 2,79,87,633 that the petitioner was required to report under Section 285BA(1) of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with pending applications closed.
|