By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
New Page 2
II. Reported :
47 Agent of non-resident : Liability in
special cases : S. 163 of Income-tax Act, 1961 : Search and seizure : Block
assessment u/s.158BD : Assessee was not having any business connection with the
non-resident Indian brother, nor any income came into existence as having been
received by the non-resident : Assessee not a trustee of non-resident :
Provisions of S. 163(1)(c) and (d) not attracted : Tribunal justified in not
treating assessee as agent of non-resident.
[CIT v. Rakesh Chander Goyal, 216 CTR 136 (P&H)]
In the course of search at the residential premises of the
assessee, it was found that the non-resident brother of the assessee, Shri Raj
Kumar Goyal, was maintaining some bank accounts which needed explanation.
Therefore, proceedings u/s.158BD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were initiated in
the case of the non-resident brother. The Assessing Officer passed an order
u/s.163 of the Act, treating the assessee as an agent of the non-resident
brother. The CIT(A) set aside the order of the AO holding that neither there is
any business connection, nor the existence of income u/s.9(1) of the Act to the
non-resident Indian, which is a condition precedent for invoking sub-clause (c)
and (d) of S. 163(1) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the decision of CIT(A).
On appeal by the Revenue, the Punjab and Haryana High Court
upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under :
“In view of its conclusion that the assessee was not having
any business connection with the non-resident Indian brother, nor any income
came into existence as having been received by the non-resident Indian and the
Department having also failed to prove the assessee as a trustee of the
non-resident Indian, the Tribunal was justified in not treating the assessee
as an agent of non- resident.”
