9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctfully following the order (supra) we delete the impugned addition made by the AO which has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and decide the appeal of the assessee in his favour. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant is appearing alongwith correct date of birth, place of birth, profession, nationality etc. and even postal address was belonging to the appellant. In these facts and circumstances, the claim of the appellant that the alleged bank account belongs to M/s Portman Investments Holding Limited, is nothing but an intermediator for facilitating to the appellant and the HSBC Bank only, since all the details/ particulars pertain to the appellant only. Therefore, above submission of the appellant, are not acceptable. From the above, following facts emerged: • The appellant Shri Shyam Sunder Jindal, maintained a bank account with HSBC Bank Geneva, Switzerland with BUP no. 9070145843 and this account remained undisclosed to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appellant. 2.1 That the CIT(A) / assessing officer erred on facts and in law in drawing adverse inference on the basis of some general/ vague particulars appearing in some unsigned/ undated/ unauthenticated loose photocopied sheets of papers, whose source is also not known/ reliable/ credible, not appreciating that the same does not constitute evidence in the eyes of law. 2.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the above addition of notional interest without appreciating that the assessing officer has admitted in para 6 of the assessment order that authentic information/ communication regarding the alleged foreign bank account was still awaited from the Swiss Authorities. 2.3 That the CIT(A)/ assessing office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 612/2017 decided on 13.12.2023 for AY 2006-07, a copy of which appears at pages 54-61 of the Compilation. The Ld. AR pointed out that against the Tribunal's order (supra) deleting similar addition the Revenue filed appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The appeals of the Revenue has since been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA Nos. 104, 107, 108 and 109/2021 whereby the order (supra) of the Tribunal has been confirmed, holding that addition of notional interest could not have been made. A copy of the decision (supra) of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is available at pages 66-71 of the assessee's Compilation. The Ld. AR therefore urged that there is thus absolutely no basis for the impugned addition in AY 2012-13 and the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C Geneva. The facts in respect of the said issue are that in the assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the IT Act, the assessing officer, apart from the addition on account of the deposits/balances appearing in the alleged foreign bank account, made further addition of Rs. 1,64,962/- (US$ 3,821.22 @ Rs. 43.17) under section 69 of the IT Act on account of "interest" calculated @ 4% p.a. on the alleged balance appearing in the undisclosed foreign bank account. 6.2 On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer holding that since no corroborative evidence has on such bank account, assessee earned interest @4%. We are of the view that the case of the assessee is on a much better footing vis-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there was no materials before Ld. ITAT to hold such interest as notional." (page 69-70 of compilation) 7. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court answered the above question as follows:- "9. Since we have concluded in ITA 612/2017 that the impugned addition would have to be deleted as no incriminating material was found during the search, in our opinion, the AO could not have calculated notional interest on the addition originally made by him. 10. Therefore, the aforementioned question of law is answered in favour of the respondent/assessee and against the appellant/revenue." 8. It is thus evident that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that notional interest on the addition originally made in AY 2006-07 by the Ld. AO could not be made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
