TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. Addition of Rs. 3,77,08,177/- on account of remittance in HDFC and BO NRE bank account- On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing officer by confirming the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 3,77,08,177/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of Rs. 36,78,500/- on account of unexplained investment in Immovable Property - On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer by confirming the direction of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) has grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 36,78,500/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent in immovable property amounting to Rs. 66,56,250/-. Since the assessee failed to explain the source of these investments and did not furnish any supporting evidence such as tax residency certificate, bank statements, financial statements or details of foreign income, the Assessing Officer treated these amounts as unexplained investments under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act and made additions accordingly. A draft assessment order was passed under section 144C(1) proposing the above additions. 5. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP, after considering the objections, remand report of the Assessing Officer and submissions of the assessee, exa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O pursuant to DRP directions. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We find that the additions in the present case have been made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Act primarily on account of non-compliance during the assessment proceedings and not on the basis of proper appreciation of evidences. The Ld. DRP has also sustained part of the additions by adopting a restricted approach without fully appreciating the factual position regarding the source of funds of the assessee. 10. On careful examination of the material placed before us, we note that the assessee is a non-resident individual who has been residing in Kenya for more than 20 years and is regularly assessed to tax in Kenya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lendar year 2017 itself amounts to Rs. 8,77,91,607/- and further, when proportionate income for the relevant financial year is considered, the total income comes to approximately Rs. 7,02,46,660/-, which is higher than the total remittances of Rs. 5,53,20,000/-. 13. Further, the assessee has also placed on record details of income declared in earlier years i.e. calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017 aggregating to approximately Rs. 12,05,69,317/-. This establishes that the assessee had sufficient sources in the form of accumulated foreign income and savings to justify the remittances made to India. The explanation that the remittances represent accumulated savings over the years and not merely income of a single year appears to be reasonable....