9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;s Axis Bank A/c. No.836486982 totalling to Rs. 17,78,15,615 deposited in US $. The assessee explained that the same were received form his NRI account maintained with Barclays Bank and Standard Bank Ltd., Mauritius duly complying with the guidelines of the Regulatory Authorities/RBI and the same was shown in his capital account for the year under consideration. The assessee also filed inward remittances certificate as evidence of receipt of money from his NRI Account. The Assessing Officer observed that in all such transactions, the purpose of receiving such inward remittances is stated as migrant transfer including person / non-resident deposits. It is also observed by the A.O. that though the assessee himself was the remitter of the funds into Standard Bank (Mauritius) Ltd., Port Louis MU, he has not furnished the copies of Bank accounts held with these banks and that the assessee had only stated that he had made a term deposit of US $ 10,00,000 during the F.Y. 2011-12. Since no evidence was furnished in support of the total credit by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made a reference to FT & TR Division, inter alia, for providing the details of the bank accounts maintained at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the CIT(Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds : " 1. The CIT(A) erred in holding the status of the assessee ;as Resident but not ordinarily resident. 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made Rs. 17,78,15,615 u/s.68 of the IT Act. 3. The CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that Revenue's appeal on identical issue in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 is pending before Hon'ble High Court. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 3. In the grounds of appeal itself, it is seen that the Revenue has filed this appeal only to keep the issue alive as the issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by orders of ITAT in assessee's own case (ITA No.1482/Hyd/2014 Dt.18.03.2015) for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Relevant paras of the order of Tribunal are reproduced hereunder for reference : " 4. Assessing Officer asked for the source of the above credit. Assessee explained and also accepted by the Assessing Officer that assessee has received US $1,74,00,000 valued at Rs. 78,04,58,374/- as a credit into his NRI A/c. Assessee provided bank transcripts from Indus Ind Bank, Secunderabad as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, has failed to furnish sufficient evidence with regard to nature and source of Rs. 78,04,58,374/- credited in the NRI Ledger. The assessee has merely relied on a copy of a certificate of loan from a company in Mauritius in which assessee has 100% ownership and claimed that to be sufficient explanation for the purpose of Sec.68 / 69 / 69A /and Sec.5(2)(b) of the I.T.Act, 1961. In such circumstances, a fair analysis of factual evidences and legal position was done by the undersigned and accordingly, I am of the considered view that Rs. 78,04,58,374/- credited in the NRI Ledger Account of the assessee shall be treated as the income of the assessee for AY.2011-12 as per Sec.68 / 69 / 69A / 69C of the I.T.Act, 1961." Para 5...... Para 6...... Para 7 ...... 8. Ld. DR relied on the detailed orders of Assessing Officer to submit that assessee has not furnished necessary evidences in support of the creditworthiness of the above amounts and his furnishing financial statements before the CIT(A) violates Rule 46A and decision of CIT(A) based on additional evidence is not correct. 9. Ld.Counsel, however, submitted that assessee has transferred his own funds from Mauritius to India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout prejudice to the above, the assessee has not only established the source of the money as also established the source to source by way of submitting the confirmation from M/s.Vitrual International Limited, Mauritius. As the assessee is a non-resident Indian and the source of money is raised from outside India, the application of 5(2) r.w.s. 9 of the Act is not valid. e. In support of the submissions/arguments of the respondent here in, he relies on the order of the CIT(Appeals)-V, Hyderabad". 10. We have considered the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and the orders of the authorities. First of all we are unable to understand how Assessing Officer can consider inward remittance of moneys into NRI A/c of a non-resident Indian as income of assessee as unexplained. Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings furnished enough evidences in support of inward remittance of funds including a certificate from M/s.Vitrual International Ltd., about the source of funds being loan. If Assessing Officer has any doubt about the said company in Mauritius, he cannot reject the genuineness of the said company without making necessary enquiries either through th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration.
Para 13.......
.......
Para 18.......
19. In view of the legal principles as stated above, provisions of Section 5(2) are also not applicable as the amount received is received from assessee's own account outside India and no income has accrued or arisen in India. These funds were also received through banking channels with necessary statutory approvals. Therefore, assessee has proved the sources of receipts and discharged the onus. It is the Revenue which failed in proving that this amount is unexplained income of assessee. In view of these facts of the case, we are of the opinion that various case laws relied by the Revenue does not apply and they are clearly distinguishable. In view of this, we have no hesitation in upholding the order of the CIT(A) and rejecting the Revenue's grounds."
Since the facts and circumstances of the case for the A.Y. 2013-14 are also similar and the Revenue has not been able to produce any decision or any material facts to the contrary, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals).
4. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th June, 2021. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
