![]() ![]() The ITAT emphasized that such presumptions should be based on concrete evidence rather than hypothesis or surmise. The entries in the bank statements did not indicate any remittance from India, and the assessee consistently claimed that the deposits were from income earned outside India.Īdditionally, the ITAT disagreed with the CIT (A)’s justification for the reopening, which relied on the presumption that the deposits in the foreign bank account represented income accrued and arisen in India. The ITAT stressed that there was no material on record to establish that the deposits in the HSBC bank account in Geneva represented income accrued or arising in India. The “Base Note” referred to a separate legal entity, Amaya Ltd., without any indication that it was fictitious or transparent. ![]() The ITAT also found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer lacked application of mind and were recorded in a mechanical manner. Since the assessee was a non-resident, this time limit was not applicable. The ITAT emphasized that the extended time limit for reopening assessments, as provided under Section 149(1)(c), applied only to residents who were required to disclose assets outside India. The Assessing Officer failed to consider this basic tenet while recording the reasons and issuing the assessment order. ![]() However, the ITAT found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and general, lacking specific references to the documents and bank statements provided by the assessee.įurthermore, the ITAT highlighted that non-resident individuals were not obligated to disclose foreign assets in their Indian income tax returns, as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The reopening of the assessment was based on a “Base Note” received by the Indian government from the French authorities. This article provides an analysis of the case and its implications.Īnalysis: The case revolved around the belief that the assessee, Amrita Jhaveri, held a bank account with HSBC Bank in Geneva, and the balance in that account was taxable in India. The ITAT ruled that such disclosure was not mandatory for non-residents and quashed the re-assessment order issued by the Assessing Officer. The Amrita Jhaveri Vs DCIT case, heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai, pertained to the requirement of non-resident individuals to disclose overseas assets in their income tax returns filed in India. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |