Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 95 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Unexplained source of the bank deposits of the assessee - assessee received his earnings from various consultancy work carried out in India, through his fully owned foreign companies, located outside India and brought the same earnings back in India - HELD THAT:- It is settled law from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT [1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More [1971 (8) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] that revenue authority are not to put on blinkers and ignore the overwhelming surrounding circumstances. CIT(A)’s reliance upon the case laws and the circular is totally not applicable on the facts of the present case. The facts of the case prima facie indicate that assessee has received sums abroad from foreign concern on account of services rendered in India. In these circumstances it was incumbent upon the assessee to cogently rebut that assessee has not received any sums abroad for services rendered in India which could have been transferred from abroad in his Indian account through these concerns. The sole reliance upon the FIRC which is only a certificate of remittance from abroad in absence of the overwhelming surrounding circumstances by the learned CIT appeals not at all sustainable. Order of learned CIT(A) is to set aside the order of the assessing officer is to be restored. Accordingly we set aside order of learned CIT(appeals) and restore that on the assessing officer on the issue of credits in the bank account. As regards the investment in shares out of the said bank account the same cannot be added again as unexplained investment. It is settled law that assessee cannot be subject to double jeopardy. Hence qua the unexplained investment in shares the order of CIT(A) is upheld. - Revenues appeal stands partly allowed.
|