The DCIT (Int.Taxa), Vadodara V. Shri Aswat Juned Motiwala, Mumbai

ITA 280/AHD/2021

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of exempt income and unsecured loans declared by the assessee, Shri Aswat Juned Motiwala, a non-resident Indian. The assessee had declared an exempt income of Rs. 5,15,48,663 from a partnership firm in the UAE and had also received Rs. 4 crores as foreign remittance. The Assessing Officer had added these amounts to the assessee's income, treating them as unexplained cash credits. However, the CIT(A) reversed this decision, leading to the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the legal provisions, dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the income earned outside India by a non-resident is not taxable in India unless it is received or deemed to be received in India or accrues or arises in India.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135809 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne & ANR vs. Pyrotek India Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIVARTIKCHOKSIWITH

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’B’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And SHRISIDDHARTHANAUTIYAL,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.280/AHD/2021 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:2017-2018 D.C.I.T, (InternationalTaxation), Vadodara. Vs. ShriAswatJunedMotiwala, 2 nd Floor,RoomNo.3, AfricaHouse, 5NagdeviStreet, NakhudaMohalla, Mumbai-400003. PAN:BRQPM8403H (Applicant)(Respondent) Revenueby:ShriSudhenduDas,CIT.D.R Assesseeby:ShriVartikChoksiwith ShriDhrunalBhatt,A.Rs सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:14/06/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख /DateofPronouncement:05/09/2023 आदेश /ORDER PERWASEEMAHMEDACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheRevenue againsttheorderoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad,(inshort“Ld.CIT(A)”)arisinginthematterofassessmentorder passedunders.143oftheIncomeTaxAct1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"the Act")relevanttotheAssessmentYear2017-18. ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 2 2.TheRevenuehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Onthefactsandincircumstanceofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)erredindeleting theadditionofRs.5,15,48,663/-madeinrespectoftheincomeclaimedasexemptinthe returnofincomebyholdingthattheerrorcommittedbythetaxpayershouldbecorrected bytheA,O.withoutappreciatingthefactthat- l.(i)theassesseehimselfhasvoluntarilydisclosedanamountofRs.5,15,48,66s/-as exemptincomeinthereturnofincomefiledforA.Y.2017-18and,therefore,itisthesole responsibilityoftheassesseetoprovewithsupportingevidencestotheultimate satisfactionoftheAssessingOfficerthattheamountdisclosedisgenuineandnottaxable inIndiabuttheassesseehasfailedtodoso. l.(ii)theassesseehasfailedtoreconciletheincomeclaimedasexemptinthereturnof incomewiththepurportedincomeearnedfromUAE. l.(iii)theexactamountofRs.5,15,48,663cannotbederivedwithoutany basiswhilefilingITRandifthesameincomeisearnedbytheassesseefromM/sabatex GeneralTradingLLC,thenthenetprofitnedbytheassesseeaspertheauditreportin Financialyear2016-17shouldmatchtheamountofexemptincomemistakenlyshownin ZTRasclaimedbytheassessee.So,theexactcalculationofhowtheamountofRs. 5,15,48,663isderivedisofutmostrelevancewhichtheassesseehasfailedtodoso. l.(iv)Aspertheagreementof2012,theassessee'sshareintheprofitisof80%. However,aspertheAuditreportofM/sBabatexgeneraltradingLLCending31/12/2017, theshareofprofitoftheassesseeis49%.Theassesseehasfailedtoofferanyexplanation onthesame. l.(v)OnobservationoftheauditreportpreparedbytheauditingfirmSKMInternational charteredaccountantswithregardtothebusinessconcerned,itisseenthat,thesaid reportdoesnotcarryanysignature,beitdigitalormanual,noranyauthoritativestamp. Withoutsignaturetheauditreportcannotbetreatedasavalidreport. 1.(vi)Thedocumentsoriginatinginforeigncountryi.e. UAEsuchasbankstatementsoftheappellantwithEmiratesNBDBankbearingA/cNo. 1014049822501,Telegraphictransfervouchers5nos..AgreementsofM/sBabatex GeneralTradingLLC2Nos.havenotbeencertifiedbyIndianEmbassyinUAEandhence aremerelyselfservingdocuuments. 2.Onthefactsandincircumstanceofthecaseandinlaw,theLd.CIT(A)erredindeleting theadditionofRs.4,00,00,000/-onaccountofsecuredloansdeclaredinthebooksof accountwithoutappreciatingthefactthat- 2(i)TheassesseehastransferredamounttotalingtoRs.2.2Cr.fromEmiratesNBDA/c. No.1014049822501toNREaccountinIndia.However,onverificationofthesamebank accountstatementofEmiratesNBDA/cNo.1014049822501,itisfoundthatduringthe concernedyearpriortotransferofamountofRs.1,00,00,000on21.12.2016,theassessee hasmadecashdepositstotalingto251000AED(Rs.45,93,300/-@18.30)onvariousdates andpriortotransferofamountorRs.1,20,00,000on28.06.2016,theassesseehasmade cashdeposittotalingto495000AED(Rs.90,58,500/-@18.30}on17.05.2016. ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 3 2.(ii)AlsothebankaccountstatementoftheappellantaswellasofM/sBabatex GeneralTradingLLCofthebankaccountheldinEmiratesNBDhasnotbeencertified byIndiaEmbassyinUAEandthustheauthenticityofthesaiddocumentsisnot established. 3.Attheoutset,wenotethattherewasadelayinfilingtheappealbythe Revenuefor118days.Admittedly,thedelayinfilingtheappealfallsduringthe covid-19periodwhereintheHon’bleSupremeCourtvideorderdated09/05/2022 intheSLPbearingNo.2522/2022inthecaseofBabasahebRaosahebKobarne& ANRVs.PyrotekIndiaPrivateLimitedhasdirectedtoexcludetheperiodfrom15- 03-2020till31-05-2022forthepurposeoflimitation.Accordingly,after consideringtheoutbreakofcovid-19,weherebycondonethedelayandproceed toadjudicatetheissueonmerit. 4.TheinterconnectedissueraisedbytheRevenueisthatthelearnedCIT(A) erredindeletingtheadditionofRs.5,15,48,663/-andRs.4croresmadebythe AOonaccountofdisallowancesofexemptedincomeandunsecuredloan respectively. 5.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassesseeisanon-residentindividualand holdstaxresidencycertificateofUAE.Theassesseeclaimedtobeengagedinthe businessofgeneraltradingthroughapartnershipfirm,namelyBabaTexGeneral TradingLLC,inwhichheispartnerof49%fortheshareofprofit. 5.1TheassesseeintheyearunderconsiderationfiledreturnofincomeinIndia declaringtaxableincomeatRs.4,11,500/-andbesidesthis,theassesseealso declaredexemptedincomeofRs.5,15,48,663/-representingtheincomeearned outsideIndiai.e.fromUAE.Theassesseeinsupportofhisclaimalsofiledcertain documentaryevidencesuchasbankstatement,Auditreport,balancesheetetcof thefirmbasedinUAE. ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 4 5.2However,theAOfoundcertaindeficienciesinthedocumentsfurnishedby theassessee,suchasnopartnershipagreement,underwhichclauseorsectionof theActtheexemptincomewasclaimed,nosuchamountcreditedintheNRE bankaccountoftheassesseeheldinIndia.Thus,theAOrejectedtheclaimofthe assesseeandaddedthesametothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 5.3Likewise,theAOfoundsthattheNREIndusIndbankaccountofthe assesseewascreditedbyRs.4croresbeingforeignremittancesfromUAEandthe samewastreatedasunsecuredloaninthereturnofincome.TheAOinabsence ofnecessarydetailtreatedthesameasunexplainedcashcreditundersection68 oftheActandaddedtothetotalincomeoftheassessee. 6.TheaggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A).The learnedARoftheassesseebeforethelearnedCIT(A)filedadditionalevidenceand contendedthattheassesseeisanon-residentIndianforincometaxpurposes. TheassesseeduringtheyearunderconsiderationremittedanamountofRs.4 crorestoIndiaoutofbusinessincomeearnedinUAEthroughpartnershipfirm namelyBabaTexGeneralTradingLLC.Further,theassessee,toexplainthe sourceofimpugnedremittanceofRs.4croreshownincomeearnedinUAEforRs. 5,15,48,663/-whichwasinadvertentlyclaimedasanexemptincome.Assuch,the assessee,beingnon-resident,wasnotrequiredtodisclosetheincomeearnedand accruedoutsideIndia. 7.RegardingremittanceofRs.4crores,thelearnedARreiteratedthatthe samewasremittedbytheassesseetohisNREbankaccountinIndiaoutof businessincomeearnedformtheFirmnamelyBabaTexGeneralTradingLLCand contendedthatinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofsection5(2)r.w.CBDT circularNo.-05dated20-02-1969,aremittancemadebynon-residenttoIndia throughbankingchannelisnottaxableinIndia.Theld.ARinsupportofhis contentionhasalsofurnishedthedetailofdatewiseremittanceinAEDandtheir valueinRupee,modeofsuchremittanceandsupportingdocuments.Thelearned ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 5 ARfurtherfiledtaxresidencycertificateoftheassesseeofUAE,partnership agreementcopy,tradelicenseofthefirm,bankstatementoftheassesseewith EmiratesNBDBankwherefromthesumofRs.2.2croreswereremittedaswellas detailoftelegraphictransfersofRs.1.8croreintheNREbankaccountofthe assessee. 8.ThelearnedCIT(A)forwardedtheadditionalevidenceandsubmission madebythelearnedARoftheassesseetotheAOforremandreport.TheAOin remandreportsubmittedthattheassesseeclaimedthatheearnedincomeinUAE fromthefirmBabaTexGeneralTradingLLCwhichwasshownasexempted incomeintheITRfiledinIndia.However,theprofitoftheimpugnedfirmasper booksandtheamountofexemptedincomeshownbytheassesseeisnot matching.Likewise,theassesseehasnotprovidedanybankdetailsofthefirm, returnofincomeandwithholdingreceiptoftheimpugnedfirm.Furthermore,the amountofexemptedincomeasclaimedbytheassesseehasnowherebeenfound tobecreditedinthebankaccountoftheassesseeinIndia.Themethodorthe basisofarrivingattheamountofexemptedincomei.e.Rs.5,15,48,663/-wasnot explainedsatisfactory.Therefore,thecontentionoftheassesseeshouldbe rejected.Itwastheassesseewhoclaimedexemptedincomeinthereturnof incomehence,itwasthedutyoftheassesseetoexplainthesourcesofsuch exemptedincome. 9.RegardingforeignremittanceofRs.4crores,theAOintheremandreport statedthattheassesseeoutoftheimpugnedsumhasreceivedRs.2.2crores fromhisbankaccountmaintainedinUAEnamelyEmiratesNBDA/c.However, therewascashdepositintheimpugnedbankaccountoftheforeigncountry wherefromthemoneywasremittedtothebankaccountoftheassesseeinIndia. Assuch,theassesseefailedtojustifythesourceofcashwhichwasdepositedin theUAEbankaccountnamelyEmiratesNBDA/cwhichwastransferredtothe bankaccountoftheassesseeinIndia.Furthermore,thedocumentsfurnishedby theassesseeinsupportoftheremittanceofRs.4croresbeingbankstatement ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 6 andothersupportingdocumentswereoriginatingfromacountryoutsideIndia andthereforetheyshouldhavebeencertifiedbytheembassyofIndiabasedin UAE.Butnosuchcertificationhasbeenprovidedbytheassesseeofthe documentsthedepictingthetransferofmoneytothebankaccountofthe assesseeinIndia. 10.However,thelearnedCIT(A)afterconsideringthefactsintotalitydeleted theadditionmadebytheAObyobservingasunder: 5.6Theappellant'ssubmissionsandtherejoinderarenotreiteratedhereforthesakeofbrevity.It shouldsufficethenotethattheappellanthasrebuttedtheissuesraisedbytheAOintheassessment orderandtheRemandReport. 5.7TheappellantbeingNRisnotindisputeandaccordinglyaspertheprovisionsofSection5(2)of theAct,theappellantisliabletotaxinIndiaonthetotalincomewhichincludeallincomefrom whateversourcederivedwhich(a)isreceivedorisdeemedtobereceivedinIndia,or,(b)accrues orarisesorisdeemedtoaccrueorarisetohiminIndiaduringsuchyear.Incomedeemedtobe receivedandincomedeemedtoaccrueorariseinIndiaisdealtinSections7and9oftheIncome TaxAct.FromthefactsofthecaseitisalsoevidentthattheprovisionsofSections7&9arenot attractedinthecaseoftheappellant.Thusprimafacieanyincome/receiptearned/receivedoutside Indiaof/bytheappellantcannotbetaxedinIndiabeingoutsidetheambitofSection5(2)oftheAct. ThusonitsfactsthebusinessincomeofRs.5,15,48,663/-earnedinUAEcannotbetaxedinIndia.As tothedepositsintheNREa/c,whiletheincomebywayofinterestisnotbeincludedinthetotal incomeasperprovisionsofSection.10(4)oftheActthedepositsmayfallinthepurviewandambit ofForeignExchangeManagementAct,1999andtherulesmadethereunder.Followingfromthe provisionsofSection5(2)oftheAct,theAOdoesnotappeartohavejurisdictiontoinquirefromthe assessee/appellantabouttheaffairsofaNRoutsideIndia.UnderthecircumstancestheAOisnot justifiedininsistingforvariousevidencesasmentionedintheassessmentorderandtheRemand Report. 5.8HoweveronthemeritsoffactsandevidencesitisseenthattheAppellantisashareholder having49%shareholdingin"M/sBabaTexGeneralTradingLLC"since2008whichisintothe businessofTradinginTextile,Metals,etc.andwasalsoapartnerinM/sBrightviewGeneralTrading LLCtill31January2018(nobusinesscarriedonbyM/sBrightviewGeneralTradingLLCsince2015). 5.9AstothebusinessincomeofRs.5,15,48,663/-wronglyclaimedasexemptincomeitisthecase oftheappellantthatheisanNRIsincelast15years,thataspertheAuditedFinancialStatements, "M/sBabaTexGeneralTradingLLC"hadearnednetprofitsofAED58,68,052/-&AED64,18,170/- forthecalendaryears2016&2017respectively,thattheappellantwasrightlyentitledtotheprofit ofthecompany,thattheIncomeearnedoutsideIndiawaswronglyshownbytheAppellantinhis ReturnofIncomeinIndiaasExemptfromTaxandthattherateofexchangebetweenINRandAED wasofnorelevanceforcomputingthetaxableIncomeoftheAppellantinIndia. 5.10AstothedepositofRs.4,00,00,000/-intheNREa/cinIndia,itisthecaseoftheappellantthat samewereremittancesofAED21,74,115fromoutsideIndia(i.c.UAE)outofwithdrawaloffunds fromM/sBabaTexGeneralTradingLLC(UAE)inwhichtheAppellantisashareholder. 5.11ItisseenthatbymakingthesubmissionbeforetheAOduringtheassessmentandtheremand proceedings,theappellanthasdischargedhisinitialonusbyproducingvariousdocumentsasoriginal submissionduringtheassessmentproceedingsandtheadditionalevidencesduringtheappellate proceedingsastohisresidentialstatus,hisbusinessincomeandhisremittancetoIndiafromoutside IndiaandthattheremittancesfromaboardintoIndiaarethroughnormalbankingchannels.Thusas ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 7 perthelawtheappellantbeingNRisnotliabletoIndianIncomeTax,unlessitisprovedbythe RevenuethattheyhaveaccruedorarisenorreceivedinIndia.TheAOhasnojurisdictionunderthe Acttomakesurmisesandconjecturesandtorejectthesubmissionsandevidencesfurnishedbythe appellant.TheappellantbeingNRwasnotrequiredtodisclosetheincomeandtheassetsoutside India.TheappellantshouldnothaveshownthebusinessincomeinUAEevenasincomeexempt fromtaxinIndia.Itisatritelawthaterrorcommittedbythetaxpayershouldbecorrectedbythe Revenue.TheforeignincomeshownasincomeexemptfromtaxinIndia,sodeclaredintheITRor inanymanner,canneitherputtheappellantinanydisadvantagenortheAOgetstheauthority/ jurisdictiontoprobeintoit.ThesurmisesonvariousdiscrepanciesmentionedintheAssessment OrderandtheRemandReporthasnoconsequencesanddoesnotmaketheincomeoutsideIndiaas taxableinIndia.ThusbynomeanstheamountofRs.5,15,48,663/-canbepartoftotalincome undertheI.T.ActsolongastheamountisnotheldtobeearnedinIndia.TheAOcanatthebest enquireintothedepositsintheappellant'sNREa/c.butthattooinalimitedwayonly.Thecash depositsintheforeignbankaccountfromwheretheamountisremittedtotheNREa/c.inIndiais alsonoconsequenceandcannotbeacaseoftheAOtodrawanyadverseinferenceonSecs 68/69/69AoftheI.T.Actwouldnotapplytotheforeignbanka/c.inthecaseoftheNR.Ratherat onelevelthetransactionsbeingthroughthebankingchannelshouldsufficeasfarasSec.5(2)ofthe Actisapplicable.TheAOhasneverdisputedthattheincomeclaimedexempt(inIndia)andthe amountdepositedintheNREa/cwerenotof/fromUAE. 5.12ThusonthefactsandonlawtheadditionsmadebytheAOintheassessmentorderimpugned inappealarenotsustainableandtheAOisdirectedtodeletetheadditionsmade. 11.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),therevenueisin appealbeforeus. 12.ThelearnedDRbeforeusreiteratedthefindingscontainedinthe assessmentorder.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedARbeforeusfiledapaperbook runningfrompages1to80andreiteratedthefindingscontainedintheorderofld. CIT-A. 13.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wenotethatthe issuesinvolvedintheappealfiledbytherevenueareinterconnected.Undisputed factisthisthattheassesseeisnon-residentIndianandbasedinUAEwhereinhe ispartnerinapartnershipfirmnamelyBabaTexGeneralTradingLLC.Thisfact canbeverifiedfromthetaxresidencycertificateissuedbytheMinistryofFinance UAEwhichisplacedonpage5ofthepaperbook.Formakingtheincomeofnon- residentIndianastaxableinIndia,therelevantprovisionsofsection5oftheAct arereproducedasunder: Scopeoftotalincome. 5.(1)********** ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 8 (2)SubjecttotheprovisionsofthisAct,thetotalincomeofanypreviousyearofapersonwhoisa non-residentincludesallincomefromwhateversourcederivedwhich— (a)isreceivedorisdeemedtobereceivedinIndiainsuchyearbyoronbehalfofsuchperson; or (b)accruesorarisesorisdeemedtoaccrueorarisetohiminIndiaduringsuchyear. Explanation1.—IncomeaccruingorarisingoutsideIndiashallnotbedeemedtobereceivedinIndia withinthemeaningofthissectionbyreasononlyofthefactthatitistakenintoaccountinabalance sheetpreparedinIndia. Explanation2.—Fortheremovalofdoubts,itisherebydeclaredthatincomewhichhasbeen includedinthetotalincomeofapersononthebasisthatithasaccruedorarisenorisdeemedto haveaccruedorarisentohimshallnotagainbesoincludedonthebasisthatitisreceivedor deemedtobereceivedbyhiminIndia. 13.1Nowcomingtothefactsofthecaseonhand,theassesseehasfiledthe returnofincomefortheyearunderconsiderationinIndiadeclaringanincomeof Rs.4,11,500/-andexemptedincomeofRs.5,15,48,663/-only.However,the assesseeregardingtheexemptincomesubmittedthathehasearnedincomefrom itspartnershipfirmbasedinUAEintheyearunderconsiderationaswellasin previousyearwhichhasbeenshownintheincometaxreturnasexempted income.Theassesseeinsupportofhiscontentionhasfiledthefollowing documentstodemonstratethattheimpugnedexemptedincomewasearnedby himintheforeigncountry: 1.Copyofauditedbalancesheetandprofitlossoffirmforyearending31 st March2017and2016 2.Workingofprofitsharing 3.Copyofpartnershipagreement 13.2However,theAOdidnotbelievethecontentionoftheassesseeforthe reasonasdiscussedintheprecedingparagraphandaccordinglymadetheaddition tothetotalincomeoftheassessee.Thereisnodisputethattheassesseehas showntheexemptedincomeintheincometaxreturnandthereforetheonuslies upontheassesseetojustifybasedonthedocumentaryevidence.Theassessee hasfurnishedthenecessarysupportingevidencebyraisinghiscontentionsduring theappellateproceedingswhichhavenowherebeendeniedbytherevenuebased oncogentmaterialsuggestingthattheexemptedincomeshownbytheassessee representstheundisclosedincomeoftheassesseetaxableinIndiaasperthe ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 9 provisionofsection5(2)oftheAct.Inourconsideredview,theincomeofthe assesseecannotbedecidedbasedonamerepieceofpaper.Assuch,itshouldbe corroboratedbythematerialavailableonrecord.However,inthecasebeforeus, theAOhasnotbroughtanymaterialonrecordtodisprovethecontentionofthe assessee.Toclassifyanyitembasedonpaperasincome,itisnecessaryforthe partyallegingsotopinpointthespecificinstancesandcorroborativematerial. However,inthecasebeforeusnomaterialhasbeenbroughtonrecordbytheAO. Besidestheabovetheassesseeadmittedlyisanon-residentandhisincome cannotbemadesubjecttaxinIndiauntilandunlesstheincomefallsunderthe followingcategories: i.IncomereceivedordeemedtobereceivedinIndia. ii.IncomeaccrueorarisesinIndiaordeemedtobeaccrueorarisesin India. 13.3Inviewoftheaboveandafterconsideringthefactsintotality,merelythe amountshownbytheassesseeundertheheadofexemptedincomecannot representtheundisclosedincomeoftheassesseeintheabsenceofcorroborative materialsuggestingthattheincomeearnedbytheassesseeistaxableinIndia. 13.4Regardingthecreditinthebankaccountoftheassesseeonaccountof foreignremittancefor₹4crores,wenotethatthemoneywasremittedfromthe foreignbankaccountoftheassesseewhichcanbeverifiedfromthedetails availableonpages8to33ofthepaperbook.Suchentryinthebankaccountof theassesseewasnotreflectinganybusinesstransactionsinIndiaandtherefore thesamecannotbetreatedasincomeoftheassessee.Itisalsopertinenttonote thattheassesseebeingnon-residentIndianshasremittedthemoneyinhisbank accountinIndiawhichcannotbetermedasloantotheassesseeorincomeofthe assessee.Itisforthereasonthatthestatusoftheassesseebeingindividual cannotbetreateddifferentlyandthereforeanyreceipttotheandNREaccountof theassesseecannotbeclassifiedasincomeoftheassessee.Therelevant provisionsofsection,inthisregard,havealreadybeenelaboratedinthe precedingparagraph.Inviewoftheabove,weholdthattheamountofremittance ITAno.280/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2017-18 10 ofRs.4croresfromtheUAEdoesnotrepresentanincomeoftheassesseeand thereforewedeclinetointerfereinthefindingofthelearnedCIT(A).Hencethe groundofappealoftherevenueisherebydismissed. 14.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytherevenueisdismissed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton05/09/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SIDDHARTHANAUTIYAL)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated05/09/2023 Manish