9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme 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. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.1043 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2007 - P. D. DINAKARAN. AND P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. F or the Appellant: Mr. N. Muralikumara JUDGMENT P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA J.- This appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elying on the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT" in short), which is applicable to the assessee; and confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 and partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the deletion of Rs. 10,00,000 made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" in short). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, the present tax case by the Revenue. Learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the source of his income and also the assessee was not a migrant to whom the said CBDT circular a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unscrupulous persons do not abuse the concession, the Income-tax Officers should ensure the satisfaction of the following conditions before accepting a claim of remittance from the above mentioned country: 1. The assessee has migrated to India from Sri Lanka on or after April 1, 1983. 2. The assessee had sufficient resources in Sri Lanka to which the remittance could be reasonably attributed. 3. The assessee had no source of income either in India or any foreign country other than Sri Lanka, prior to migration and he was not assessed as resident in India either for the assessment preceding the year in which he migrated or for earlier years. 4. The assessee has intimated the Income-tax Officer concerned about the sum brought over and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is fulfilled by the assessee, like the assessee has migrated from Sri Lanka and he has sufficient resources in Sri Lanka and he has also produced evidence regarding the source. Therefore, we hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has taken a correct view in deleting the addition. We also do not find that any useful purpose will be served in setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and reject the ground taken by the Revenue." From a reading of the above, it is clear that the Tribunal had given a factual finding that the assessee had sufficient sources in Sri Lanka to cover the remittances to India. The find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
