9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 2,57,000 to the assessee's income under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Immunity under the Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991. Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 2,57,000 to the Assessee's Income under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 The assessee claimed a remittance of Rs. 2,57,000 from the NRE account of Shri Vinod Goel, which was credited to his Dena Bank account. The amount was received via a demand draft issued by ANZ Grindlays Bank. The assessee argued that the amount was received under the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 (Foreign Exchange Immunity Act), and thus, it should not be taxed. The AO, however, found that there were severe violations of FERA, 1973, and that the remittance was part of a larger scandal involving Shri Vinod Goel and his associates. Consequently, the AO taxed the amount as income from undisclosed sources. Issue 2: Immunity under the Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991 The Tribunal had previously considered whether the assessee was entitled to immunity under the Foreign Exchange Remittance Scheme, 1991. The Tribunal noted that the case was similar to that of Anil Tibrewala, who also claimed immunity for amounts received from Shri Vinod Goel. In the Anil Tibrewala case, the Tribunal held that the AO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as the assessee had provided sufficient details to show entitlement to immunity under the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the CBDT Circular No. 611 assured that no inquiry would be made regarding remittances received under the scheme and that the tax authorities were bound by this circular. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 2,57,000 to the Assessee's Income: The AO's decision to tax the amount was based on findings that Shri Vinod Goel had violated FERA, 1973, by not filing the required foreign declaration forms. The AO also noted that the Enforcement Directorate had found significant violations and that the High Court of Bombay had observed that neither Shri Vinod Goel nor any recipient from him could enjoy immunity. The Tribunal, however, considered the case of Anil Tibrewala, where similar issues were raised, and concluded that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment based on mere suspicion without sufficient material evidence. 2. Immunity under the Remittance in Foreign Exchange (Immunities) Scheme, 1991: The Tribunal referred to the CBDT Circular No. 611, which clarified that no inquiry or investigation would be made regarding remittances received under the scheme. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary details to show that the amount was received under the Foreign Exchange Immunity Act. The Tribunal also noted that subsequent adjudication by the Assistant Director of Enforcement had discharged the charges against Shri Sanjiv Goel and Smt. Minu Agrawal, further supporting the assessee's claim for immunity. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2,57,000 and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing that the assessee was entitled to immunity under the Foreign Exchange Immunity Act.
|
