2020 (7) TMI 69 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposit in the NRO bank account - Additions u/s 69 - not accepting the explanation of the assessee - whether the assessee has provided reasonable explanation explaining the source and nature of cash deposit of ₹ 9 lacs in his NRO account maintained with ICICI Bank? - whether the AO is correct in invoking the provisions of section 69 and bringing such receipts to tax in the hands of the assessee for the impugned assessment year? - HELD THAT - We find the explanation of the assessee as a plausible explanation given the facts and circumstances of the present case. Where the source of such foreign currency and the fact of bringing such foreign currency in the country has not been disputed by the Revenue, the explanation of the assessee that out of such funds, he has deposited ₹ 8 lacs in his NRO bank account within a period of few days is a plausible explanation in terms of source, quantum and timing perspective. Secondly, where such salary income and interest on NRE account are exempt from tax in India at first place, a position which has been accepted by the Revenue and thus, not in dispute, then in such a scenario, subsequent deposit of the same or a part thereof in his NRO account maintained in India cannot be brought to tax in India. Thirdly, in his return of income, the assessee has disclosed long term capital gains on sale of plot on 27.11.2015 and the DLC Value has been shown as ₹ 17,82,707 which is same as the sale consideration of ₹ 17,82,707/- received by the assessee and there is no finding that the assessee has received any consideration over and above what has been shown in the return of income. Besides, the assessee has disclosed interest on FDR, Interest on NRO account, interest on IT refund in his return of income. There is thus no adverse finding recorded by the Assessing officer in terms of any source of income over and above the declared income in the return of income. Therefore, where there is no finding that the assessee has any other source of income, other than what has been declared by him, then in such a scenario, the explanation of the assessee cannot be discarded in absence of any adverse material on record. No doubt, the amount has been found deposited in his bank account and the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of such deposit. But, once the assessee has provided an explanation which in the instant case, we find reasonable and plausible, the deposit so made cannot remain unexplained. In view of the same, we find that even though the assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence issued by Thomas Cook in support of exchange of foreign currency with Indian Rupees,there is no basis for invoking the provisions of section 69 in the instant case. In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the cash deposit in the NRO bank account of the non-resident assessee is unexplained?
2. Whether the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the cash deposit is reasonable and acceptable?
3. Whether the provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act were correctly invoked by the Assessing Officer?

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the addition of ?8,00,000 in the NRO bank account of a non-resident assessee. The Assessing Officer treated this cash deposit as unexplained due to the absence of evidence regarding the conversion of USD into Indian rupees. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, emphasizing the importance of establishing the nexus between the foreign currency brought into India and the cash deposit in the bank account.

2. The assessee, a United Nations employee, explained that he exchanged USD 21,500 through an authorized money changer upon arrival in India, out of which he deposited ?8,00,000 in his NRO account. The assessee argued that the absence of a receipt for the currency exchange should not render the deposit unexplained, especially considering his disclosed income sources and the immediate deposit upon arrival. The Tribunal found the explanation plausible, given the source, quantum, and timing of the deposit, along with the absence of adverse findings on undisclosed income.

3. The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to provide primary evidence supporting the source of the cash deposit, leading to the invocation of section 69 by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the explanation, though lacking a receipt from the money changer, was reasonable in the context of the case. The Tribunal highlighted the exempt nature of the assessee's income sources and the absence of contradictory evidence, leading to the deletion of the addition and ruling in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for a reasonable explanation in tax matters and the importance of considering the entirety of facts and circumstances in determining the legitimacy of cash deposits, especially for non-resident individuals like the assessee in this case.