Statutory immunity for foreign remittances requires strict declaration compliance; unexplained credits and belated evidence cannot cure the defect.

A statutory immunity scheme for foreign remittances required strict compliance with the prescribed declaration, because the declaration operated as the safeguard identifying eligible recipients and the scheme permitted no extension or condonation for non-compliance. Rule 46A does not allow an appellant to fill gaps in the original record at the appellate stage; additional evidence must be justified by sufficient cause and genuine inability to produce it earlier. Where immunity is unavailable, foreign remittances must be independently explained by proof of donor identity, financial capacity and transaction genuineness, since banking channels alone do not establish a non-taxable receipt. Separate relief on low drawings depends on the factual adequacy of household withdrawals and surrounding circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether filing of the declaration under the Immunity Scheme was mandatory for availing immunity; (ii) whether additional evidence tendered after assessment was admissible under rule 46A; (iii) whether the foreign remittances could be treated as the appellants' income in the absence of proof of the donor, capacity and genuineness; and (iv) in one appeal, whether the addition for low drawings was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether filing of the declaration under the Immunity Scheme was mandatory for availing immunity.

Analysis: The immunity under the special scheme was available only to a recipient who complied with the prescribed procedure for claiming it. The declaration was the distinguishing statutory safeguard for identifying remittances eligible for immunity, and the scheme provided no power to extend time or condone non-compliance. The use of the word "shall", the limited duration of the scheme, and the object of conferring immunity only on compliant recipients showed that the prescribed declaration was an essential condition and not a mere formality.

Conclusion: The declaration requirement was mandatory, and the appellants were not entitled to immunity under the scheme.

Issue (ii): Whether additional evidence tendered after assessment was admissible under rule 46A.

Analysis: Throughout the assessment proceedings the appellants maintained that they had complied with the scheme and sought time to locate the declaration, while the Assessing Officer repeatedly required proof of source and informed them of the bank's denial. The later material was produced after the assessment to cure gaps in the original case and was not shown to have been prevented by sufficient cause. Rule 46A does not confer a right to fill lacunae at the appellate stage, and the appellants' conduct showed inaction and lack of bona fides rather than a genuine inability to produce evidence earlier.

Conclusion: The refusal to admit additional evidence was justified.

Issue (iii): Whether the foreign remittances could be treated as the appellants' income in the absence of proof of the donor, capacity and genuineness.

Analysis: Once the appellants lost the claimed immunity, the burden remained on them to explain the nature and source of the credit. Receipt through banking channels from abroad did not by itself establish that the amounts were gifts or non-taxable receipts. The identity of the alleged donor, his financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transaction were not satisfactorily proved on the record before the Assessing Officer, and the subsequent material was rightly excluded. On the material properly on record, the credits were unexplained.

Conclusion: The additions treating the remittances as income from unexplained sources were upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether the addition for low drawings was sustainable in the one appeal where it was disputed.

Analysis: The authorities below found the drawings to be inadequate and erratic having regard to the assessee's social and economic status, and partial relief had already been granted by the first appellate authority. No convincing basis was shown to disturb that finding.

Conclusion: The addition for low drawings was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The common challenge to the additions failed, the disallowance relating to low drawings was also maintained in the separate appeal, and the assessments as affirmed by the first appellate authority stood undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory immunity depends on a prescribed declaration, compliance with that condition is mandatory; failing such compliance, the assessee must independently prove the source and genuineness of the credit, and appellate evidence cannot be used to cure deficiencies caused by earlier inaction or lack of bona fides.

---