Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 155 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment u/s 69 - wire transfer from NRE account - assessee is a non-resident during the impugned year under consideration holding a UK Passport and the amounts in question were transferred to the assessee’s NRE bank account by way of wire transfer from the account of the assessee’s son, who is also a resident of UK - only reason on the basis of which the additions have been made are that the assessee has not been able to explain the source of funds received by the assessee in his NRE account (although it has not been disputed that the aforesaid amount has been received by way of wire transfer from another NRE account of the assessee’s son). HELD THAT:- It would be useful to refer to the case of Tarun Kumar Sarkar [2017 (6) TMI 644 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein the ITAT held that where foreign employer directly credited salary for services rendered outside India into NRE bank account of non-resident seafarer in India, same could not be brought to tax in India in terms of section 5 of the Act. In this case of Iqbal Ismail Virani [2021 (3) TMI 664 - ITAT PANAJI] ITAT held that money brought in India by non-resident for investment or for other purpose is not liable to tax under provisions of Act and question of assessment to income-tax arises only when there is no evidence to show that amount in question in fact represents remittance from abroad. In the case of Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya [2018 (11) TMI 949 - ITAT MUMBAI] ITAT held that where additions were made to income of assessee, who was a non-resident since 25 years, since, no material was brought on record to show that funds were diverted by assessee from India to source deposits found in foreign bank account, impugned additions were unjustified. In the case of Smt. Susila Ramasamy [2009 (4) TMI 554 - ITAT CHENNAI] ITAT held that in case of remittances by way of banking channel onus on assessee under Section 69 stands discharged, and, therefore, section 5(2)(b) does not apply. Thus CIT(A) has erred in facts and law in confirming the additions made by the assessee received by way of wire transfer from NRE account of his son in UK to assessee’s NRE account from which investments were made into Mutual Funds. In our considered view, in the instant facts, no addition is sustainable under Section 69 of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
|