9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 308 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69 - unexplained investment in property from NRE account of the appellant - HELD THAT - Nothing has been brought on record to dispute that the assessee is a UK resident filing return of income in UK the amounts were transferred by the assessee from his UK bank account to his NRE bank account and it is from this NRE bank account that the assessee had made payments for purchase of property through banking channels. There is no allegation that the assessee had paid any amount over and above the amounts which was paid through banking channels. Further there is no specific finding that the assessee was earning any income from any sources within India. In a recent decision the Gujarat High Court in the case of Nitin Mavji Vekaria in 2023 (11) TMI 649 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has quashed the income tax notices issued to several Ugandan residents over investments made in time deposits and mutual funds. The Court held that the investments were made from NRE accounts and the income from these accounts was exempt from being included in the total income. In the case of Shri Vinodkumar Hiralal Shah 2024 (1) TMI 155 - ITAT RAJKOT 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 u/s 69. We are of the considered view that CIT(Appeals) erred in facts and in law in confirming the addition in the hands of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the validity and jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, the applicability of section 69 regarding unexplained investments, and the taxability of funds remitted from abroad into India through Non-Resident External (NRE) accounts. Specifically, the issues include:
1. Whether the reassessment order under section 147 was legally valid and within jurisdiction, given the facts and the absence of any reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2. Whether there was any escapement of income chargeable to tax when the appellant made investments in immovable property using funds from his NRE account, which were remittances from his foreign bank account. 3. Whether the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation due to procedural irregularities such as issuance of first notice without Document Identification Number (DIN) and lack of proper approval. 4. Whether the addition made under section 69 of the Act for unexplained investment was justified, given the evidence of funds being sourced from the appellant's NRE account. 5. Whether the lower authorities properly considered submissions and case law cited by the appellant challenging the reassessment and the addition under section 69. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Jurisdiction of Reassessment under Section 147 The legal framework governing reassessment under section 147 requires that the Assessing Officer (AO) must have a "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Court emphasized that the AO's opinion must be formed objectively based on material on record, not on surmises or conjectures, as held in precedent decisions such as CIT v. P. Mohanakala. The Court noted that the AO initiated reassessment despite the appellant's submission that the investment was made from funds in his NRE account, supported by bank statements and purchase deeds. The AO's failure to accept these explanations and the absence of any allegation of undisclosed income or round-tripping suggested a lack of proper application of mind. The Court concluded that the reassessment order was without jurisdiction and illegal, as the AO did not have a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2. Escapement of Income and Taxability of Investments from NRE Account The legal framework under sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act distinguishes between residents and non-residents regarding income chargeability. For non-residents, only income received or deemed to be received in India, or accruing or arising in India, is taxable. The appellant, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing in the UK, had purchased immovable property in India using funds transferred from his UK bank account to his NRE account in India. The remittances were made through proper banking channels, and the appellant filed evidence including UK income tax returns, bank statements, and purchase deeds. Precedents from the Gujarat High Court and various ITAT decisions were cited, establishing that investments made from NRE accounts, representing funds earned outside India and remitted through banking channels, are not taxable in India. The Court referred to the Gujarat High Court's ruling in Nitin Mavji Vekaria and ITAT decisions such as those in the cases of Vinodkumar Hiralal Shah and Iqbal Ismail Virani, which held that money remitted from abroad by non-residents for investment is not income taxable in India. The Court also relied on the CBDT Circular No. 5/1969, which clarifies that money brought into India by non-residents through banking channels is not liable to tax unless evidence shows otherwise. The principle that "receipt" of income refers to the first occasion when the recipient obtains control over the money was emphasized, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Keshav Mills Ltd. Applying these principles, the Court found that the appellant's remittances to his NRE account and subsequent investment in property did not constitute income received or accrued in India and thus were not taxable. The AO's rejection of the appellant's explanation was deemed improper and based on conjecture. 3. Limitation and Procedural Validity of Reassessment Proceedings The appellant contended that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation due to the first notice being issued without a Document Identification Number (DIN) and without proper approval. While the Court did not elaborate extensively on this point, it noted the procedural irregularities raised and considered them as part of the overall assessment of the reassessment's validity. The Court's finding that the reassessment lacked jurisdiction implicitly supports the conclusion that procedural defects contributed to the invalidity of the reassessment. 4. Addition under Section 69 for Unexplained Investment Section 69 deals with unexplained investments, allowing the AO to add amounts to income when the source of investment is not satisfactorily explained. The AO treated the payments made for property purchase from the NRE account as unexplained, relying on the appellant's alleged failure to prove the source of remittances into the NRE account from the UK bank account. The appellant submitted extensive documentary evidence, including bank statements, purchase deeds, passport details, and foreign income tax returns, demonstrating the legitimate source of funds abroad and their transfer through banking channels. The CIT(A) refused to admit additional evidence during appeal proceedings due to non-compliance with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, which requires an application for admitting evidence not submitted during assessment. The appellant's failure to file this application led to rejection of the evidence and confirmation of the addition. The Court held that the CIT(A)'s reliance on procedural technicalities was misplaced, given the substantive evidence on record proving the source of funds. The Court emphasized that the AO's addition under section 69 was unsustainable where the source of funds was adequately explained and traceable to legitimate foreign income. 5. Consideration of Submissions and Case Laws The appellant cited multiple judicial precedents supporting the non-taxability of income remitted through NRE accounts and the illegality of additions under section 69 in such circumstances. These included decisions from various ITAT benches and High Courts, which uniformly held that remittances from abroad by non-residents, made through proper banking channels, do not constitute taxable income in India. The Court found that the lower authorities failed to properly consider these submissions and precedents, instead relying on procedural grounds and unsubstantiated disbelief of the appellant's evidence. This failure led to erroneous confirmation of the additions and reassessment. Significant Holdings: "The money brought in India by Non-Resident for investment or for other purpose is not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The 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." "The word 'receipt' implies two persons viz. the person who receives and the person from whom he receives; a person cannot receive a thing from himself." "The addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and the orders of both the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) are hereby set-aside. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions." Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue are:
|
