9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1413780. During the year assessee remitted Rs. 2,17,08,596/ to his NRE Account from own funds and received Rs. 40,000/ from his sister in India in his NRO account. Out of this fund he made fixed deposit with HDFC Bank, amounting to Rs. 2,01,50,000/-. The FIRC presented by the assessee clearly says that remittance was made from assessee's own bank account 370-201246-882 held with Hang Seng Bank, Hong Kong to his NRE account 50100221413770 with HDFC Bank and NRO Account 50100221413780 with HDFC Bank . Since the remittance made by assessee from his own bank account in India can not be considered income the addition made by the department overriding the provision of Section 5(2),6,9 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is prayed to be deleted." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19. Certain information was in possession of the Department that the assessee had entered into high-value transactions during Assessment Year 2018-19 and assessee had made time deposits in HDFC Bank of Rs. 2 crores and Rs. 1.5 lakhs respectively. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer observed that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Time deposit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/-. Since the assessee has failed to submit source of credits amounts, the investment in time deposits is also unexplained investment. However, credit amount to the tune of Rs. 2,17,48,596/- is treated as unexplained credit in NRE & NRO bank account, so telescoping is given for investment in Time Deposit and no separate addition was proposed for the same. Considering the above facts, amount of Rs. 2,17,48,596/- is treated as unexplained credits in bank accounts and added to the total income u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income tax Act for the year under consideration. Penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271AAC(1) of the IT. Act separately. (Addition Rs. 2,17,48,596/-)" 4. The assessee filed application before DRP, who upheld the order of the assessing officer, with the following observations: "Thus, Section 69A lays down two conditions for treating the monies (Bank deposits owned and held by the Applicant) etc. as unexplained: (i) Assessee is owner of money (Sums of money into bank deposits of the applicant) which has been deposited and held as investment in the account during relevant period; (ii) The explanation about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenable and therefore, are rejected." 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by DRP, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee, Mr. Alan Moses is a citizen of Israel and was carrying on business in Hong Kong. He is a non-resident as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the Counsel for the assessee produced a copy of passport of the assessee for two purpose. It was submitted before us that the assessee was carrying on business in Hong Kong and there is no allegation that he was having any business connection with India and hence no part of the income was taxable in India. During the year under consideration the assessee opened two bank account with HDFC Bank and in the NRE account, there was credit entry of Rs. 2,17,08,595/- on account of remittance from outside India. The assessee made fixed deposits of Rs. 2,01,50,000/- with HDFC Bank out of the aforesaid remittances from his own account from outside India. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Department has not challenged the residential status of the assessee as "non-resident". There is also no allegation on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Hong Kong to NRE bank account with HDFC Bank, India. A perusal of the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate also shows that the remitter of the funds was assessee himself and the funds were sent by the assessee from his overseas bank account in Hong Kong. In the case of CIT v. Suresh Nanda 35taxmann.com 199 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that since in none of relevant Assessment Years assessee stayed in India for 182 days or more, he was to be regarded as non-resident and, therefore, amount transferred from his foreign account to domestic account could not be brought to tax by invoking provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In the case of DCIT v. Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya 100 taxmann.com 280 (Mumbai - Trib.), the 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 v. ACIT 37 SOT 146 (Chennai), the Assessee, a non-resident Indian, had made substantial Non-Resident Non-Repatriable (NRNR), Foreign Currency Non-Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
