ACIT Circle 2(2)(1) Int. Taxation, Delhi V. Raghubir Singh Kohli , Mumbai

ITA 254/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi against Raghubir Singh Kohli, a non-resident Indian residing in Dubai. The dispute centered on the addition of Rs.1,67,35,000 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the Assessing Officer (AO) claimed was unexplained investment. The CIT(A) reversed this addition, finding that the investments were sourced from the assessee's NRE account, which received funds from abroad. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131787 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANSHITA BAHARANI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 254/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi Vs Raghubir Singh Kohli, 61-A, Mittal Tower Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AVQPK0021J Assessee by : Ms. Anshita Baharani, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-43, New Delhi dated 28.12.2021. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,67,35,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of additional evidence without calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer which is in clear violation of Section 295(2)(mm) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962” 3. The assessee aged about 83 years is a non-resident Indian staying in Dubai for the last 36 years running an Auto spares company in Dubai filed return of income declaring an income of ITA No. 254/Del/2022 Raghubir Singh Kohli 2 Rs.37,55,780/-. The assessee made investments in Mutual Funds and FDs during the year out of the NRE account. The complete details of Mutual Funds are reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee earned interest income from banks on term deposits held in NRO account and due taxes have been deducted by the banks. The AO held that the assessee has not given the details of source of investments and added these amounts of investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The ld. CIT(A) found that the source of the amounts invested in Mutual Funds and FDs have been duly reflected in the NRE account of the assessee wherein the amounts have been in turn received from foreign bank account as per the RBI directions on Deposits and Accounts. The assessee has also attached the investment proof of the Mutual Funds and their respective source in the bank statement. Further, the ld. CIT(A) held that the remittance by the assessee from abroad to NRE account cannot be considered as income as per the Circular of the CBDT No. 5 in F.No. 73/A/2/69-IT(A-II). 5. Since, the source of investments have been duly reflected in the NRE account, we decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) accepting the source of the investments. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/01/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18/01/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*