Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 994 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition based on foreign HSBC bank accounts - information received by Govt. of India from the French Government under DTAA - income received or accrued in India - CIT-A deleted addition - bank accounts have been opened in the name of entities viz. Zetec Ventures Ltd and Zeke Limited based in British Virgin Islands and assessee is a Director in one of the two entities and the second entity was founded by assessee - The claim of the assessee was that none of the bank accounts in question have any relation or connection to India or to any of assessee’s transactions in India HELD THAT:- The onus was on the Department to prove that the particular asset in question was within the taxing provisions of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The proposition has been arrived at, relying on the judgment of Parimisetty Seetharaman vs. CIT [1965 (4) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, we proceed further on the premise that the onus was on the AO to establish that qua the three bank accounts in question assessee had the ownership and also the fact that the transactions therein have Indian connection. As per the CIT(A) there is no material or evidence to say that the assessee was connected with the bank accounts in question so as to justify an inference that any income thereof was received or deemed to have been received or accrued or deemed to have accrued in India. A perusal of the Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue before us reveal that none of the findings recorded by the CIT(A) have been assailed on the basis of any material or evidence. In fact, the entire case of the Revenue, which had been adverted to at the time of hearing before us, is based on the presumption that the assessee has routed the money sourced from India through the three entities into the bank accounts in question. It is a well-settled proposition that a presumption, howsoever, strong cannot substitute an evidence and, therefore, in our view, the CIT(A) made no mistake in deleting the addition. What is required is to weigh and consider all evidences and material which are available on record. Considering the facts of the instant case and noting that there was complete absence of material, as noted by the CIT(A) too, we find that the application of test of human probabilities to sustain the addition would be unjustified - Decided in favour of assessee.
|