ACIT, CHENNAI V. Erich Nessel Hauf, CHENNAI

ITA 280/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8950 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYA PAL IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: P J PARDIWALLA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Residential status; Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Valuation report; Revised return
• Section: 68; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.280/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI 600 034 VS. SHRI. ERICH NESSEL HAUF, C/O. DICV CAMPUS, 3B, RMZ MILLENNIA BUSINESS PARK, 143 DR MGR ROAD, PERUNGUDI, CHENNAI 600 096. [PAN AHMPN 6872G] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SUPRIYA PAL, IRS, JCIT. $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. P.J. PARDIWALLA, AND SHRI. NISHANT THAKKAR, ADVOCATES. & ' ' ( /DATE OF HEARING : 27-06-2016 ) ' ' ( /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-07-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-4, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 8/2015- 16/2012-13/CIT(A)-4, DT 30.11.2015 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012-2013 ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 89,02,18 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT RELYING MERELY ON AN AFFIDAV IT WHICH IS A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT IGNORING THE FACT OF ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,34,88, 000/- - ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY MERELY ASSUMING IT AS 'SOME VALUE' REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN IN ITR AND WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE FULL VALUE OF INVESTME NT AND YEAR OF INVESTMENT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE RETUR N OF INCOME WAS VERIFIED AND SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO REVISED RETURN WAS EVER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IF TH ERE WAS ANY MISTAKE IN THE ITR. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HIMSEL F HAS ADMITTED IN THE ITR THAT INVESTMENT WAS -MADE IN TH E HOUSE PROPERTY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A GERMAN NATIONAL AND HAS COME TO INDIA IN AUGUST, 2008 ON E MPLOYMENT ASSIGNMENT/CONTRACT WITH DAIMLER INDIA COMMERCIAL V EHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED AND COMPLIED RESIDENTIAL STATUS FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AS RESIDENT AND ORDINARILY RESIDENT WITH GLOBAL INCOME TAXABLE IN INDIA AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 01. 08.2012 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF A2,90,03,178/- CONSISTING OF INCOME FROM SALARY A2,80,70,673/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES A9,32,505/-. SUBSEQUE NTLY, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S.143( 2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND DUE TO CHANGE OF JURISDICTION NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY CONCERNED LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, THE LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED INFORMATION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON PERUSAL O F THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWINGS FOREIGN ASSETS:- SL. NO COUNT RY CODE NAME OF THE BANK ADDRESS OF THE BANK NAM MENTIONED IN THE ACCOUNT PEAK BALANCE 1 49 DEUTSCHE BANK PRIVAT UND GESEHAFTSKUNDEN - AG INVESTMENT AND FINANZECENTER ESSLINGEN AM HAFENMARK T 73728 ESSLINGEN ERICH NESSEL HAUF 24,95,280/ 2 49 MERCEDES BENZ BANK AG KUNDENSERVICE POSTFACH 65 01 02 66141 SAARBRUCKEN ERICH NESSEL HAUF 64,06,800/ TOTAL 89,02,080 DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SL.NO COUNTRY CODE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY TOTAL INVESTMENT 1 49 SCHARTENBERGSTR 29, 76435 BADEN - BADEN 1,34,88,000 IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER CALLED FOR THE CLARIFICATIONS ON PEAK BALANCE AS PER SCHEDULE IN RETURN OF INCOME AND INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE LD. AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE FILED LETTER DATED 10.03.2015 EXPLAINING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IN GERMANY NAMELY DEUTSCHE BANK AND MERCED ES BENZ BANK. ITS GERMAN PRACTICE FOR INDIVIDUALS TO OBTAIN THE C ONCERNED BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS ON PERSONALLY APPROACHING THE CONCERNED BANK. THE BANK IS NOT MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO ISSUE STATEMENT AND THE SAM E APPLIES TO INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE DUE TO HIS EMPLOYMENT IN INDIA COULD NOT OBTAIN SUPPORTING ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: DOCUMENTS FROM HIS BANK AND BECAUSE THERE IS NECESS ITY TO DISCLOSE DETAILS OF FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNTS IN SCHEDULE OF RETURN OF I NCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTIMATED THE BANK BALANCE AMOUNT AND CONVERTED INTO INDIAN CURRENCY AND DISCLOSED A89,02,080/- IN THE RETURN O F INCOME. BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REAL FACT S AND CREDIT BALANCE AMOUNT IN THE FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNTS ARE ACCUMULATED FUNDS AND INTEREST ON BALANCES ARE OFFERED TO TAX IN INDIA BUT ON SUSP ICION WAS UNDER THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE SAI D INFORMATION BASED ON SOME DOCUMENTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED T HE SOURCES NOR PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY PROOF IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. HENCE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT AND MA DE AN ADDITION. SIMILARLY IN THE SAME SCHEDULE, THE ASSESSEE DISCLO SED DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN GERMANY WITH TOTAL INVESTMENT BEING A1,34,88,000/-. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FILED EXPLANATIONS IN RESPECT OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY BEING ANCEST RAL AND WAS ACQUIRED IN THE YEAR 1963. BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IGNOR ED THE TITLE OF PROPERTY AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO VALUATION R EPORT OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VALUE DISCLOSE D IN RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE CONSTRUCTE D THE PROPERTY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-2012 AND HAS SPENT A1,34,88,000/- AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENT THAT TH E SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT INVESTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR TREATED THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: PROPERTY AT GERMANY AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND A SSESSED TOTAL INCOME AT A5,13,93,258/- AND RAISED DEMAND. AGGRIE VED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND EXPLAINED THE F ACTS AND THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER ALONGWITH SUBMISSIONS FILED ON VARIOUS DATES. THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE EMPHASIZED THAT COMPLETE INFORMATION WAS FILED BEFO RE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF PEAK BALANCES OF ASSESSEE FOR EIGN BANK ACCOUNTS AND VALUE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING AND ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE REASONS FOR NON SUBMISSIO N OF BALANCE CERTIFICATE ON PEAK BALANCES AND SUPPORTED THE ARGUMENTS WITH J UDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSID ERED THE FACTS ON RESIDENTIAL STATUS AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) DEALT ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT PAGE 3 & 4 OF HIS O RDER WERE THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS EXPLAINED WITH REASON S, DETAILS ON COMPLYING THE CONDITIONS AND VIOLATION OF PRINCIPL ES OF JUSTICE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEALT ON ADDIT ION OF UNEXPLAINED PEAK CREDITS OF A89,02,080/- WERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EXHAUSTIVE EXPLANATIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 10.03.2015. THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 6 -: INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE EARLIER SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 27.10.2 015 ALONGWITH ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT EXECUTED AFFIRMING AND EXPLAINING THE FAC TS. FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PERUSED FOREIG N BANK ACCOUNTS AND PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WITH SUPPORTING DECISIONS ON GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF DISCLOSURE OF FOREIGN A SSETS IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS, THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED THE BANK BALANCE S OF DEUTSCHE BANK AND MERCEDES BENZ BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENTS DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AND OFFE RED TO TAX INTEREST INCOME IN GERMANY AND IN INDIA. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF INDIA, THE BALANCE AMOUNTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS ACCUMULATED OVER YEARS AND PRODUCED COPIES OF INTEREST CERTIF ICATES OFFERED TO TAX WITH SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE FRESH EVIDENCE AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS FORWARDED LETTER DATED 27.10.1015 TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FILED A REMAND REPORT DATED 19.11.2015 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED AN OPPORTU NITY TO FILE REPLY/COMMENTS AND THE SAME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BY LETTER DATED 30.11.2015. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 7 -: PRODUCED AND DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE REFE RRED AT PARA 8.6 OF HIS ORDER. FURTHER, THE LD. . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTS, REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH EVIDENCE OF AMOUNT IN BANK ACCO UNTS ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD BEING CARRY FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEA RS AND THE GUIDELINES ON INCOME TAX RETURN DISCLOSURE. THE ASSESSEE WITH A BONAFIDE FAITH TO COMPLY WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME GUIDELINE HAS ONLY DISCLOSED THE BALANCE AND THERE IS NO SUPPRESSION OF INVESTMENTS DURING T HE PREVIOUS YEAR AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITH THESE OBSERVATION RELIED ON THE LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SUPPORTED BY TH E AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF PEAK BALANCE. 4.1 ON THE NEXT GROUND UNDER THE DISCLOSURE OF FORE IGN ASSET, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DEALT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 9 IN PAGE 8 OF ORDER AS UNDER:- 'WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT GERMANY S HOWN AT RS.1,34,88,000/- THE REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED SOME DOCUMENT STATING THAT THE SAME IS THE PROOF FOR POSSESSION OF A HOUSE PROPERTY IN GERMANY WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE AN ANCES TRAL PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. NO VALUATION REPORT OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED HOW THE ABOVE FIGURES WERE ARRIVED AND THE SOURCES FOR THE SAME. THE PROPERTY MAY BE THE ASSESSEES ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND IT IS NOT KNOWN . WHETHER THE INVESTMENT SHOWN AT RS. 1, 34, 88~ 000/- IS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE OTHERWISE. THE ASSESS EE MIGHT HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE PROPERTY DURING THIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. YEAR AND MADE INVESTMENT OF 1,34,88,000/- AS ADMITTED IN HIS RETURN OF ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 8 -: INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THE NA TURE OF INVESTMENTS IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND ITS SOURCES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF SHOWING THAT THE A MOUNTS SHOWN ARE NOT INVESTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER' CONSI DERATION, THE SAME IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT THE PROPERTY IS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENTS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE PROPERTY WAS OBTAINE D FROM GRANDFATHER IN THE YEAR 1993 WHICH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS O VERLOOKED THE GENUINE EXPLANATIONS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE OWNERSHIP DOCUM ENT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED IN 1993 AND NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WAS UNDERTAKEN IN PREVIOUS Y EAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REGISTRATION DOCUMENTS OF GERMAN REGISTRA TION AUTHORITIES TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE VERY MUCH BEFORE PREVIOUS YEAR 2011-2012 AND FILED DETAILED REPLY ON 27.10.20 15. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BASED ON THE R EMAND REPORT AND FINDINGS BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND REPLY FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICERS REMAND REPORT ON 30. 11.2015 FOUND THAT DUE TO OFFICIAL REQUIREMENT OF DISCLOSURES OF ASSE TS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY, THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AN D MENTIONED THE VALUE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO INVESTMEN T DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE LD. CITA) CONSIDERED THE BASIC FACTS OF OWNERSHIP THAT THE ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 9 -: PROPERTY WAS INHERITED FROM THE ANCESTOR AND THE A SSESSEE IS HOLDING PROPERTY FROM THE YEAR 1993 AND AFFIDAVIT WAS FILE D WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A OWNER OF THE PROPER TY MUCH PRIOR TO RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WERE THE PROPERTY WAS INHERI TED FROM HIS GRANDFATHER AND NO MONEY WAS PAID AND THE VALUE OF PROPERTY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS ONLY ESTIMATED VALUE. FU RTHER, THERE IS NO INVESTMENTS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR BY THE ASSESSE E AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF A1,34,88,000/- AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARG UED THE GROUNDS AND EMPHASIZED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER WERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE PEAK VALUE BASED ON SOME DOCUMENTS AND HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE AMOUNT IS ACCUMULATED B ALANCE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUPPORTED THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN ON DISCLOSURES AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS IGNORED THE FACTS AND DELETED THE ADDITION WHICH IS NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW AND PRAYED FOR SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E OF ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE GROUNDS. ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 10 -: 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME HAS DISCLOSED PEAK BALANCE WHICH WAS SUPPORTED WITH SOME EVIDENCE AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CO NSIDERED THE FACTS OF POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THE STATEMENTS FROM THE BAN K AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF THE ADDITION HAS TO BE SUSTAINED. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REASONS OF ASSIGNMENT OF THE WORK IN INDIA WITH GER MAN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVIT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK REFERRING TO THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON FOUR OCCASIONS AND BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO FILE OBJE CTIONS/COMMENTS AND THE SAME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH LETTER D ATED 30.11.2015. ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING THE BANK ACCOUNT O F DEUTSCHE BANK AND MERCEDES-BENZ BANK AND THERE ARE NO TRANSACTIONS EX CEPT BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD FROM EARLIER YEARS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS OFF ERED INTEREST INCOME ON THE BANK ACCOUNT BALANCE IN THE INCOME TAX RETU RNS AND AGAIN CONFIRMED BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT WITH COMPARISON CH ART OF INTEREST INCOME ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 11 -: EARNED FROM DEUTSCHE BANK AND MERCEDES-BENZ BANK. THE ASSESSEE DUE TO MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO REPORT FOREIGN ASSETS H AS DISCLOSED THE PEAK BALANCE AND EXPLAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THAT IN GERMANY, INDIVIDUAL HAS TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT AND APPROAC H THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY WITH PERSONAL REQUISITION FOR BANK STATE MENTS. DURING THE YEAR 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN INDIA ON ASSIGNMENT A ND HE HAS ONLY DISCLOSED THE ACCUMULATED BALANCE OF FINANCIAL YE AR 2011-2012 AND NO FRESH INVESTMENTS WERE MADE AND THE REPORTING OF IN VESTMENTS WAS APPRECIATED. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET THE CLARIFI CATIONS ON PEAK BALANCES AS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS A PPLICABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013. CONSIDER ING THE APPARENT FACTS, MATERIAL ON RECORD, RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND DISCLOSURES UNDER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX, THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL EV IDENCE VIZ-A-VIZ EXPLANATIONS OF ASSESSEE AND HAS DEALT EXHAUSTIVEL Y ON THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION AND WE AR E NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS GROUND AND DISMISS THE REVENUE GROUND. 7.1 SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE VALU E OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER FOREIGN ASSET. THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 12 -: ASSESSEE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE PROPER TY BY INHERITANCE IN THE YEAR 1993 FROM HIS GRANDFATHER THROUGH A REGIST ERED DEED. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAG E 28 TO 31 OF PAPER BOOK REFERRING TO THE REGISTERED PROPERTY DOCUMENT S ALONGWITH SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED TRANSLATED COPY. FUR THER, THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE FACTS BY FILING THE NOTARIZED AFFIDAV IT MENTIONING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS INHERITED FROM HIS GRANDFATHER AND HIS ASSIGNMENT IN INDIA TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR 2008 AND THE ASSESSEE BECAM E RESIDENT AND ORDINARY RESIDENT IN SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WIT H GOOD FAITH HAS ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN RELEVANT COLUMN AND HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2011-2012 . CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS, DOCUMENTARY LEGAL EVIDENCE, AND GER MANY REGISTRATION DOCUMENT WITH TRANSLATED COPY, WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DEALT ON T HIS ISSUE IN DEPTH AND CONCLUDES ON MERITS THAT THE PROPERTY WAS INHER ITED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DISCLOSED MARKET VALUE IN GOOD FAITH IN CO MPLIANCE TO GUIDELINES OF INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDINGS ON THE RE MAND REPORT AND REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ITA NO.280/MDS/2016 :- 13 -: WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF A1,34,88,000/ - AND THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY , 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) $ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ' . ( ) ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) * %& / JUDICIAL MEMBER *& / CHENNAI + / DATED:14TH JULY, 2016. KV , ' $'./ 0/' / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 3. 1' () / CIT(A) 4. 1' / CIT 5. /4 5 $'6 / DR 6. 5 7 8 & / GF