AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") dated 5th July, 2019 in ITA No. 3956/Del/2017, ITA No. 3955/Del/2017, ITA No. 3954/Del/2017, ITA No. ITA No. 3953/Del/2017, ITA No. 3952/Del/2017, ITA No. 3951/Del/2017 and ITA No. 2892/Del/2017 for assessment years 2012-13, 2011-12, 2010-11, 2009-10, 2008-09, 2007-08, and 2006-07 respectively. Since all the appeals raise identical questions of law, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by way of a common order. 2. Briefly stated, on 9th November, 2011, a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the Respondent-Assessee, on the basis of information and documents made available to the Government of India under a Double Taxatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the Respondent-Assessee would have earned interest on the balance available in the foreign bank account. In appeal, the CIT(A) held that deposits in the foreign bank account were rightly taxed by the AO under Section 69, however since no corroborative evidence was adduced to establish that interest was actually earned, the CIT(A) deleted the addition in that respect and the same was upheld by the learned ITAT vide the impugned order. The learned ITAT held that documents received by the Indian government are undated and unsigned and do not contain reference to any bank. Since no evidence emerged that the Respondent-Assessee had earned interest, the addition of interest could not be sustained. For AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08, the learned I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Respondent-Assessee has deceased. On merits, he defends the impugned order and argues that no questions of law arise for consideration of the Court. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Since the Respondent-Assessee has deceased, the appeals are not maintainable in the present form. Be that as it may, since we are not inclined to entertain the appeals, as in our opinion no questions of law arise for our consideration, we are not going into the question of maintainability. 6. The Appellant-Revenue has proposed the common question of law being urged in AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 regarding the quantum of amount to be added, subject to a variance in the figures. The said question as propo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under- "5.1 Importantly, the assessee, while denying ownership of any foreign bank account, in his income tax return for assessment year 2012-13 offered for tax Rs. 5,81,32,321/- as amount equivalent to US $11,46,368. On the other hand, the assessing officer, apart from accepting the said offer in assessment year 2012-13, has also brought to tax US $ 11,02,829 and US$ 43,539 in assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. In fact, by applying conversion rate of Rs. 44.45 per dollar and Rs. 43.17 per dollar in the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessing officer taxed 4,90,20,749 _and Rs. 18,79,578 in the said assessment years, aggregating to Rs. 5,09,00,327, which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax by the assessee in assessment year 2012-13, being Rs. 5,81,32,321/-, which was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on protective basis, is hereby directed to be restored on substantive basis in assessment year 2012-13. In the result, the grounds of appeal nos. 2 to 2.3 raised by the assessee in the assessment year 2006-07 are allowed." 8. We do not find any perversity in the aforesaid observations made by the learned ITAT in respect of additions made on quantum and interest. In view of the aforesaid, the question of law raised by the Appellant-Revenue in the present appeals in respect of quantum does not arise for our consideration. Since the addition on quantum cannot be sustained, the addition of interest cannot survive. Thus, no question....