Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that basically the High Court had made the additions on the ground that the assessee had been unable to present declaration forms that had been filled in by him at the time of his visits to India from abroad. Keeping in mind the fact that these declaration forms were asked for long after the expenditure had, in fact, been incurred, it could not possibly be said that the Appellate Tribunal’s judgment and findings therein were perverse, which was the only entry on facts for the High Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction under S. 260A of the Act. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the Appellate Tribunal’s judgment as no substantial question of law arose therefrom. Order of Tribunal is affirmed. (AY. 1992-93 to 1997-98)
Purshottam Khatri v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 475 / 267 Taxman 503/ ( 2020) 312 CTR 323/ 185 DTR 177 (SC) Editorial : Decision in CIT v Purshottam Khatri (2006) 203 CTR 1/(2007) 290 ITR 260 (MP) (HC ) is reversed.
S. 69 : Un explained investment-Income from undisclosed sources- Non-Resident-Deposit in NRI Accounts–Deletion of addition by the Tribunal based on the evidences–Reversal of the order of Tribunal by the High Court is held to be not valid–Oder of the Tribunal is affirmed. [S.158BB, 260A, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, S.13]