COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. PURSHOTTAM KHATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 260a of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') filed by the CIT against the order dt. 7th June, 2000 of the Tribunal.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that the respondent left India in 1968 and was employed in Muscat and Dubai till the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1992-93 and thereafter returned to India. A search was carried out under Section 132 of the Act in the premises of the respondent at Bhopal for a period of 13 days from 18th Oct. , 1996 to 30th Oct. , 1996. Thereafter, an assessment was made under Section 158bc read with Section 143 (3) of the Act by the AO on 29th Oct. , 1997 determining the total undisclosed income for the block period 1st April, 1986 to 18th Oct. , 1996 at Rs. 2,10,48,043. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore (for short, the Tribunal) and by order dt. 7th June, 2000, the Tribunal deleted some of the additions made by the AO to the undisclosed income of the respondent and allowed the appeal in part.

(3.) THE first ground urged by the appellant in the appeal is that the Tribunal's decision to delete addition of Rs. 1,03,50,020 as unexplained deposits in the NRE accounts of the respondent was erroneous in law. Accordingly, on 13th Aug. , 2001, the Court while admitting the appeal, formulated the first substantial question of law for decision in this appeal as follows : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,03,50,020 made on account of unexplained deposits in the NRE bank accounts of the assessee even when the assessee had failed to discharge his onus of establishing the genuineness of the source of credits in his NRE bank accounts ?