ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi V. Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

ITA 4872/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5309 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET GUPTA
• Keywords: Residential status; Notional interest

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI G BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4872/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI VS SHRI SURESH NANDA, 4, CASUARINA AVENUE, WESTENED GREENS, 30-D,RAJOKARI, NEW DELHI-110038 PAN-AAFPN9895H APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SH. PRAKASH DUBEY, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SH. GAURAV JAIN, ADV. & SH. SANKET GUPTA, CA DATE OF HEARING 20.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 .09.2021 ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2017 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-23, NEW DELH I, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 2 | P A GE I. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW A ND ON FACTS. II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,51,15 /- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVE D IN ILORA ACCOUNT. III. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,7 0,24,638/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN ICICI BANK LONDON. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT R EQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO.2 IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE HSB C GENEVA BANK ACCOUNT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS LD. AR A ND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSU E HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2009-10 AND AY 2012-13, VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2016. HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE IDENTICAL ADDITION IN ALL THE PREC EDING YEARS, WHICH WERE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 3 | P A GE HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ALL THOSE PRECEDING YEARS. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE INTEREST ON THE LAST KNOWN BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HSBC, GENEVA. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATEL Y NOT PRODUCED THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND PARTICULARLY BAN K ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. 7. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE ALLEGED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HSBC GENEVA BANK AGAINST ENTITY 26810 ILORA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE INTEREST BY TAKI NG THE LAST KNOWN CREDIT BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS ON MAY, 2006. THUS, AFTER THE MAY, 2006 THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW WHETHER ANY CREDIT BAL ANCE WAS AVAILABLE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IN THE SUBSEQUEN T YEAR AND ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 4 | P A GE PARTICULARLY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE THERE IS NO BANK STATEMENT AVAILABLE OR ANY OTHER INFORMATION TO SHO W THE STATUS OF EXISTENCE OR FORECLOSURE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.2014. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MA DE ADDITION ON PRESUMPTIVE INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AYS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 AND 2012-13 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN PARA 4.3.2.2., WH ICH READS AS UNDER:- 4.3.2.2 THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER F. NO. ACIT/CC-3/201 7- 18/88 DT. 08.05.2017 HAS SENT THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WITH HSBC BANK GENEVA BUP_SIFI_PER_ID 9070144384 PERJD 17851 PER_NO 144384 WHEREIN DEPOSITS IN THE NATURE OF FIDUCIARY DEPOSITS AND LIQUID ASSETS FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 2005 TO FEBRUARY 2007 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. ADMITTEDLY, THE AO IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THIS BANK FOR T HE PERIOD AFTER FEBRUARY 2007 AND RELEVANT TO AY 2014-15 . ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK' STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE A O IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS ENTRY RELATED TO INTEREST CREDITED EVEN FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 2005 TO FEBRUARY 2007. THE AO, BY APPLYING THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT INTEREST RA TE OF INDIA OF 4%, HAS COMPUTED INTEREST FOR THE FYS 2007 -08 TO 2013-14 AT PARA-3.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, COMPOUN DED ANNUALLY. SINCE THERE IS NO BANK STATEMENT AVAILABL E FOR THE PERIOD AFTER FEBRUARY 2007 AND, AS MENTIONED ABOVE , THERE IS NO ENTRY OF ANY INTEREST CREDITED EVEN FOR THE PERIOD UPTO FEBRUARY 2007, THE ENTIRE COMPUTATION FO R THE ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 5 | P A GE FYS 2007-08 TO 2013-14 ARE PRESUMPTIVE AND ESTIMATED SANS ANY EVIDENCE. THE AO HAS BY APPLYING A CONVERSI ON RATE OF RS.59.94 PER DOLLAR MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,5 1,158/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST THOUGH AT PARA-3.4 PAGE-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS WORKED OUT THE INTEREST AT US$ 25044.5606 AND AT PARA-3.4 HE HAS MENTIONED THE INTEREST IMPUTED AT RS. 15,01,171/- (T HE MISTAKE IS BECAUSE AT PARA-3.12 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER HE HAS COMPUTED INTEREST @4% RS.6,51,158/- INSTEAD OF US$ 651158). THE RATE OF 4% HAS BEEN TAKEN ARBITRARI LY WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BASIS FOR THE SAME AND WITHO UT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD BY THE A O THAT INTEREST WAS ALSO PAID ON THE DEPOSITS/BALANCE IN TH E ACCOUNT, PARTICULARLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AFTER THE YEARS RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08 FOR WHICH THERE IS NO STATEMENT OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OR ANY INFORMATIO N, AS PART OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION OR OTHERWISE, IN RESPECT OF THESE SUBSE QUENT YEARS. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER IN 434 PA GES (CORRESPONDENCE SIDE) AND I COULD NOT FIND ANY BANK STATEMENT OF THE IMPUGNED ACCOUNT WITH HSBC BANK GENEVA. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IS NOTI ONAL, CALCULATED BY ADOPTING THE AD HOC RATE OF 4%. EVEN OTHERWISE IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST C ANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME. HENCE THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IN ALL THE YEARS MADE BY THE AO ARE DELETED. 8. THE LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTS AS RECORD ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW ANY INTEREST INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE FROM THE ALLEGED HSBC GENEVA BANK ACCOUNT. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR THE AYS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 AND 2012-13 HAS CONSIDERED A N IDENTICAL ISSUE VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2016 IN ITA NO.4802 TO 4806/DEL/2015 IN PARA 10 TO 13, AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 6 | P A GE 10. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED FO R THESE YEARS IS EVEN OTHERWISE COVERED BY THE JUDGEME NT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 25.02.2013, IN ITA NOS.85/2013, 100/2013 AND 87/2013 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04, WHEREI N THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE AN NRI AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEES BANK IN SINGA PORE HOLDING THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ACCRUAL OR RECEIPT OF INCOME IN INDIA, FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNTS O F NRI CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN INDIA. THE RELEVANT PO RTIONS OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT READ AS UNDER:- 6. WE ARE LEFT TO CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF RS.10,51,20,000/- MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION IS CONCERNED, THE DECISION WITH REGARD TO IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDED AS A RESIDENT OR NON-RESIDENT. IN CASE HE IS REGARDED AS RESIDENT, THEN, OBVIOUSLY, THIS ADDITION WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE. BUT IF HE IS REGARDED AS A NON-RESIDENT, THEN, THIS ADDITION WILL HAVE TO BE DELETED. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DONE. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON- RESIDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED. 13. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED THAT THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE WAS NOT A RESIDENT IN INDIA IN THE YEARS IN QUESTIO N, IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.10,51,20,000/- U/S 68 WOULD HAVE TO BE DELETED BECAUSE IT WAS A TRANSFER FROM THE RESPONDENT/ASSESSEES FOREIGN ACCOUNT TO THE DOMESTIC ACCOUNT. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT/TRIBUNAL, IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASES, IN SUP PORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. THEY ARE: (I) ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 24.07.2012 FOR AYS 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2004-05 IN ITA NOS.1428, 1429 & 1430/DEL/2012 (II) ORDER OF THE ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 7 | P A GE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.2.2014 FOR AYS 2004-05, 2005- 06 A ND 2006-07 IN ITA NOS.2236, 2601, 2605/DEL/2013, CO NO.165/DEL/2013, ITA NOS.2606/DEL/2013 & CO NO.166/DEL/2013 (III) JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT DATED 27.5.2015 FOR AYS 2007-08 AND 2008- 09, IN ITA NO.715/2014, CM NO.19243/2014, ITA NOS.722/2014 & 723/2014 (IV) ORDER OF THE ITAT FOR AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 DATED 11.4.2014 IN ITA NOS.2237,3718, 3431 & 4641/DEL/2013 (V) JUDGEMENT O F THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 23.9.2015 FOR AY 2009-10 IN ITA NO.741/2015. 12. THE LD. DR THOUGH NOT LEAVING HER GROUND FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS CITED BY THE LD . AR. NEVERTHELESS, SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT B EFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, BOTH ON THE ISSUE OF RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DE LETION OF ADDITIONS ON MERITS. SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUPPORTED THE SAME. 13. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, PARTICULARLY, THE JUDGEMENTS/OR DERS CITED BY THE LD. AR, WE FIND THAT THE COMMON ISSUE AS MENTIONED ABOVE, INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AYS 2006-07 AND 2007- 08 ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS CITED BY THE LD. AR (SUPRA) IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FA CTUAL FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO LINK THE MONEY BROUGHT INTO I NDIA OR KEPT IN FOREIGN ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE A LINK WITH ANY INDIAN DEFENCE CONTRACT PAYMENT. THE INCOM E HAS NOT ACCRUED OR ARISEN IN INDIA. WE THEREFORE, UP HOLD THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 9. EVEN THE ISSUE OF STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING NRI FOR THE AYS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 HAS BEEN FINALLY DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS POINTED OUT BOTH THE PARTI ES, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBU NAL, WE DO NOT ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 8 | P A GE FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GRO UND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.3 IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT S IN THE ICICI BANK LONDON WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS SUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2006-07 AND 2007-08, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE LD. DR HAS FAIRLY ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT A N IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS INVOLVED FOR THE AYS 2006-07 AN D 2007-08 AND THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE ICICI LONDON ACCOUNT OF THE ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 9 | P A GE ASSESSEE BY RECORDING THE FACT THAT THE OPENING BAL ANCE IS OF THIS ACCOUNT WERE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND CERTAIN BALANCE WERE LEFT WHICH WERE PROPOSED TO BE ADDED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE YEAR IN WHICH THESE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THOSE BANK ACCOUNTS. FINALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY REQUIRED INFORMATION AMOUNT APPEARING IN THE COLUMN NO.9 OF THE TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE OF THE AMOUNT ALREADY ADDED T O THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS TO BE ADDED AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO RECORDED THE FACT THAT T HE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS NRI DURING THOSE YEARS IS NOT FINAL LY SETTLED AS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. NOW THE S AID DISPUTE OF NRI STATUS IS FINALLY SETTLED AND THE OR DER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS BEEN UPHELD B Y THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR WHICH WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LD. DR. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED THIS ADDITION IN PARA 4.3.3. TO 4.3.4 AS UNDER:- 4.3.3 AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF THE ALLEGED BALANCE ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 10 | P A GE IN THE ICICI BANK LONDON VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO.ACIT/ CC- 3/2017-18/90 DT. 09.05.2017 THE AO HAS INFORMED THAT THE UK TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE COP IES OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THIS ACCOUNT. ON PERUSAL OF PAR A- 4.1, TABLE-1, OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE INFORMATI ON AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF THE FIVE ACCOUNTS IS FOR TH E AYS 2005-06 TO 2008-09 FOR THE SEPARATE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS (AS MENTIONED IN TABLE-1 SUPRA). ADMITTEDLY , THERE IS BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD AFTER THE RESPECTIVE DATES MENTIONED IN TABLE-1 (SUPRA) AND THE BALANCES HAVE OBVIOUSLY NO BACKING ON ANY EVIDENCE. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER IN 434 PAGES (CORRESPONDENCE SIDE) AND I COULD NOT FIND ANY BANK STATEMENT OF THE IMPUGNED ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK LONDON. 4.3.4 IN ANY CASE, SIMILAR ADDITIONS ON BOTH ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE HONBLE ITAT AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, AS DETAILED IN THE WS AND MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE AT PARAS-3 & 4.3. THE ADDITIONS MADE BEING PURELY PRESUMPTIVE SANS ANY EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO/BROUGHT ON RECORD THE ADDITIONS ON BOTH ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS, HSBC BANK GENEVA AND ICICI BANK LONDON. 14. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08, VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2016 (SUPRA) HA S DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 24-27 AS UNDER:- 24. FOR AYS 2007-08 & 2008-09 THE COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,15,40,179 (AY 2008 - 09) AND RS.3,61,47,562 (AY: 2007-08) MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN ICICI, LONDON. 25. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 11 | P A GE 8.3 THE SEVENTH GROUND OF APPEAL IN AY 2007-08 AND THE FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL IN AY 2008-09 IS AGAINST ADDITION OFRS.3,61,47,562/- & RS.1,15,40,179/-, RESPECTIVELY, BEING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT HELD WITH ICICI BANK, LONDON. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY HON'BLE ITAT IN APPELLANT'S CASE IN THE EARLIER APPEALS THAT MONEYS KEPT IN ACCOUNTS HELD BY HIM OUTSIDE INDIA COULD NOT BE TAXED AS HE IS A NON-RESIDENT. I HAVE ALSO HELD I N THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT UNLESS IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE MONEY HELD BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNTS ARE PROCEEDS OF INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING IN INDIA OR DEEMED TO HAVE ACCRUED OR ARISEN IN INDIA IT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS I HOLD THAT AS THE APPELLANT IS A NON-RESIDENT AMOUNTS KEPT IN THE ACCOUNT HELD BY IN ICICI BANK LONDON, OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY OTHER FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNT, CANNOT BE TAXED IN INDIA UNLESS IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE MONEYS ARE PROCEEDS OF INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING IN INDIA OR DEEMED TO HAVE ACCRUED OR ARISEN IN INDIA. AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT TH E MONEY KEPT IN ICICI BANK, LONDON HAS ACCRUED OR ARISEN FROM A SOURCE IN INDIA, THESE AMOUNTS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. I HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND DELETE THESE ADDITIONS. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 26. THE LD. AR MADE THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AND RELIED ON THE SAME JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS AS FOR THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE FOR AYS 2006-07 & 2007-08 IN SUPPORT OF THIS ISSUE ALSO. 27. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT/ITAT CITED ABOVE WHILE DEALING THE FIRST COMMO N ISSUE FOR AYS 2006-07 & 2007-08. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THOSE JUDGEMENTS/ORDERS, AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR VIEW ON THE ISSUE OF DEPOSITS IN FOREIGN BA NK ACCOUNTS DRAWN FROM PARA 7 TO PARA 13, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO AND DISMI SS THE GROUND OF REVENUE. ITA NO. 4872/DEL/2017 12 | P A GE 15. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR AND IL LEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.3 OF TH E REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/09/2021 . SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (VIJAY PAL RA O) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI/DATE 21.09.2021 F{X~{T F{X~{T F{X~{T F{X~{T COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI