Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (12) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... MBER For the Petitioner : Shri Ajay Wadhwa Adv. For the Respondent : Smt. Sunita Kejriwal ORDER PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. These appeals by the revenue have been filed against the orders of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi all dated 9.11.2012 passed in first appeals no. 74, 75 76/11-12 for assessment year 200-1-02, 2004-05 and 2006-07 respectively. I.T.A. No. 599/D/2013 for A.Y. 2001-02 2. The revenue has raised sole ground in this appeal which reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in the circumstances of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c of assessee. 3. Apropos above ground, we have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record before us. Learned Departmental Representative supported the stand and action of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nds established. The only reason it has been brought to tax, presumably u/s 56(1), is that Sh. Suresh Nanda being a nonresident has refused to disclose the source of his income abroad and, therefore, the source of money remains unexplained. As mentioned above, the source of these receipts by the appellant are proceeds of NRNR deposits and interest on RBI Bonds received by Sh. Suresh Nanda, father of the appellant. If these proceeds are found to be taxable, and also taxed, in the hands of the Sh. Suresh Nanda, the question of taxing the receipt in the hands of the appellant would not arise. No doubt, contrary to the stand of the revenue, the Hon ble ITAT has held Sh. Suresh Nanda to be a non-resident vide its order dated 24.7.2012 in ITA Nos.1428, 1429 and 1430/Del/2012. However, income accruing or arising from assets held in India would still be taxable in India in the case of Sh.Suresh Nanda. The ITAT has remanded the matter on several issues to the file of the Assessing Officer in the case of Sh. Suresh Nanda in the above appeals. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the taxability of proceeds of NRNR deposit and interest on RBI Bonds in the case of Sh. Suresh Nanda and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and the source of alleged amount in question has been properly explained by the assessee, hence the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee. 8. On careful consideration of above rival contentions and vigilant perusal of the operative part of the impugned order, we note that the first appellate authority granted relief with following conclusion and findings:- 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and the facts of the case, which are similar to the facts for A/Y 2001-02. It is not disputed that the aforesaid amount of ₹ 12,00,000/- was received by the appellant from his father Sh. Suresh Nanda. The amount was received by way of account payee cheque drawn on 10.6.2003, from the NRE account of Sh Suresh Nanda with Deutsche Bank, New Delhi. On 9.4.2003, there is a credit of ₹ 23,65,000/- in the Deutsche Bank account, New Delhi, being inward remittance from abroad received by Sh. Suresh Nanda. The remittance is from Deutsche Bank, Singapore, belonging to Sh. Suresh Nanda which has been credited to the capital account of Sh Suresh Nanda, father of the appellant. With this remittance, and after certain other debit and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ands of Sh Sanjeev Nanda, the appellant, is if it can be treated as a business receipt or salary or perquisite in his hands. This not being the case, the question of taxability of this amount in the hands of the appellants does not arise. The ground raised by the appellant is allowed and the addition is deleted. Appellant gets relief of ₹ 12,00,000/-. 9. The aforesaid conclusion is similar to the order of assessment year 2001-02 (supra) and we clearly note that the assessee properly explained source of amount in question that the same was received from his non-resident father Shri Suresh Nanda from the deposits in his bank account by way of account payee cheque dated 10.6.2003 wherein there was a credit balance of ₹ 23,65,000 on 9.4.2013 i.e. much prior to issuance of cheque to assessee. These facts have not been controverted by the Assessing Officer and the learned Departmental Representative and thus we are unable to see any infirmity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the same as the alleged amount cannot be treated as unexplained receipt of the assessee and cannot be taxed in the hands of respondent u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Significantly, no evidence of any separate bank account belonging to the appellant was found during the course of search. It is not disputable that the amounts of payments totaling USD 54,599 made to Craig Roberts Associates Inc., which have been added in the case of the appellant as well as in the case of his father Sh. Suresh Nanda, were the same and related to various invoices towards consultancy charges and professional services with regard to Sonali Farms. This fact emerges from the two assessment orders passed by the same Assessing Officer in the case of the appellant and his father Sh Suresh Nanda. It has been submitted that these amounts were paid out of the Singapore account of Sh Suresh Nanda and also taxed in his hands. There is no evidence that there is some other source for the payment of these amounts. Thus, the source of investment is clear and undisputed. If the source is not established, the amount can be brought to taxation u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure. But as the source of payment is clear from the assessment order in the case of the appellant s father Sh Suresh Nanda, and also taxed in his hands, it cannot be again brought to taxation in the hands of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 005 to 16.7.2005 to Craig Roberts Associates Inc. against various invoices towards consultation charges and professional services pertaining to Sonali Farms total of which comes to USD 54599. These facts have not been disputed or controverted by the Assessing Officer. 13. It is also amply clear that the remittances are from Deutsche Bank Singapore belonging to the father of the assessee Shri Suresh Nanda to which respondent is a co-signatory and authorized to sign cheques in the absence of his father. The Assessing Officer was incorrect and wrong in holding that the assessee held and operated said bank account abroad whereas he could not bring any material or evidence to establish that the assessee solely or individually held and operated said bank account abroad. The Assessing Officer has not brought out any other evidence to support that there was any other source of payment by the assessee and on the other hand, the source and purpose of investment is clear and undisputed that the amounts paid to M/s Craig Roberts were from bank account of Shri Suresh Nanda and also taxed in his hand, then it cannot be again brought to tax in the hands of present assessee merely because he is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates