9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in deleting the alleged over-reporting of the value of time deposits to the tune of Rs.7,18,47,782/- (Assessed income 16,68,47,782/- minus 9,50,00,000/-) without conducting a third party verification and without calling for remand report from the assessing officer which is in clear violation of Section 295(2) (mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962. 2. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has inadventently erred in accepting the genuineness of the source of investments of Rs.9.50 crores based on admissibility of the additional evidence without calling for remand repot from the assessing officers which is in clear violation of Section 295(2) (mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that he never stayed in India for a period exceeding one month since last 35 years. It was further stated that the time deposits made with the bank are from NRI account and interest income has been earned. It is submitted, since, the assessee is a NRI and the entire funds, except the interest, was earned/generated outside India, it cannot be taxed in Indian. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and proceeded to add an amount of Rs.16,86,47,782/- as unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act. The assessee contested the aforesaid addition before earned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee submitted that due to prevailing restrictions on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) deleted the balance addition. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The basic grievance of the Revenue is, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should not have deleted the addition based on additional evidences furnished by the assessee without forwarding them to the Assessing Office for his examination and opinion. It is fairly well settled, powers of the first appellate authority is co-terminus with the Assessing Officer. On a reading of section 250 and 251 of the Act, it is very much clear that learned Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding an appeal can consider and decide any matter arising out of proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of Rs.9,50,00,000/-. He has further found that even Rs.9,50,00,000/- deposited in Canara Bank was out of overseas remittances from the income earned by the assessee as a resident in USA for past so many years. No contrary material has been brought on record by the Revenue to disturb the aforesaid factual findings of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, if, upon examining the material on record learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a factual finding, without pointing out any deficiency or discrepancy in such finding, the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be reversed merely on the allegation of violation of Rule 46A. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
