Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decision, dismisses Revenue appeal on non-resident's foreign income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found the assessee, a non-resident individual with income from UAE, provided adequate documentation supporting exempt income and foreign remittances. It emphasized the AO lacked jurisdiction to question foreign income sources. The Tribunal also noted the Revenue's delayed appeal due to COVID-19, condoning the delay and proceeding to adjudicate on merit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,15,48,663/- claimed as exempt income.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on account of secured loans.
3. Delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 5,15,48,663/- Claimed as Exempt Income
The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,15,48,663/- made in respect of income claimed as exempt by the assessee. The AO found deficiencies in the documents provided by the assessee, such as the absence of a partnership agreement and lack of clarity on how the exempt income was derived. The assessee, a non-resident individual with a tax residency certificate from UAE, claimed the income was earned from a partnership firm in UAE. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant being a non-resident is not liable to tax in India for income earned outside India as per Section 5(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) noted that the appellant had provided sufficient documentation to support his claim and that the AO had no jurisdiction to inquire into the appellant's foreign income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO did not bring any material evidence to disprove the assessee's claim.

Issue 2: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on Account of Secured Loans
The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- on account of secured loans. The AO had treated the amount remitted to the assessee's NRE account in India as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee argued that the amount was remitted from his business income earned in UAE. The CIT(A) found that the remittances were through normal banking channels and that the AO had no jurisdiction to question the source of funds deposited in a foreign bank account. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the remittance from a foreign bank account to the NRE account in India cannot be treated as income of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide any evidence to suggest that the remittance represented the assessee's income taxable in India.

Issue 3: Delay in Filing the Appeal by the Revenue
The Tribunal noted that there was a delay of 118 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue, which fell during the COVID-19 period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed to exclude the period from 15-03-2020 till 31-05-2022 for the purpose of limitation. Considering this, the Tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merit.

Conclusion
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support his claims and that the AO had no jurisdiction to question the foreign income and remittances of a non-resident. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not bring any material evidence to disprove the assessee's claims.

---