| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4466 (Mum-Trib) : (2020) 207 TTJ 1049 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 69
Assessee right from day one has disowned impugned bank account. Further, brother of assessee had filed a letter to AO along with affidavit and claimed that bank account was opened by him in his capacity as NRI and whatever money lying in bank account is belonged to him and assessee was included in the bank account as a second holder, for the purpose of nomination and for the sake of convenience. Accordingly, AO had erred in making additions towards amount lying in bank account as unexplained money of assessee.
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 68 - Bank account alleged as unexplained - Bank account proved to be belonging to assessee's brother and name of assessee included only for the sake of nomination
Assessee was a Indian citizen and was resident of UAE from 1979-91 and thereafter working at Vienna, Australia. He was a non-resident in India up to assessment year 1999-2000 under provisions of the 1961 Act. In 2001, assessee came back to India for settling in India. Since, then assessee had been filing his return of income in India from assessment year 2002-03 onwards. AO received information from the Government of France as for which assessee had opened a bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva. The information further revealed that assessee was a beneficiary of an account opened under Code BUP 5090171854 with HSBC Bank The account had been opened under client name 'Dipak Varandmal Galani and/or Kamal Varandmal Galani. Accordingly, AO taxed amount invested of USD 3 Million for opening bank accounts and income from invested amount as undisclosed income of assessee. Assessee furnished copy of his passport and that of his brother, Mr. Dipak Galani and a copy of letter of Dipak V. Galani addressed to AO and submitted that bank account was opened by his brother completely belonged to his brother and his name was included as a second account holder as a respect to his elder brother. Held: It was very clear that assessee right from day one has disowned the bank account. Further, brother of assessee had filed a letter to AO along with affidavit and claimed that bank account was opened by him in his capacity as NRI and whatever money lying in bank account is belonged to him and assessee was included in the bank account as a second holder, for the purpose of nomination and for the sake of convenience. Accordingly, AO erred in making additions towards amount lying in bank account as unexplained money of assessee.
Supported by:CIT v. United Commercial and Industrial Company Limited (1991) 187 ITR 596 (Cal) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 95 (Cal-HC) and CIT v. Shiv Prakash Aggarwal (2008) 306 ITR 324 (Del) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 801 (Del-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 1999-2000 to 2002-03
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|