The addition of foreign bank balances as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable for a non-resident when discrepancies, such as clerical data-entry errors in return filings, are satisfactorily explained and verified during appellate remand proceedings.

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)' passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 17.06.2025.

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

"1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the submission filed before the Ld. CIT(A). The order is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the same be quashed and or set aside.

2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant, being a Non-Resident, maintained foreign bank accounts in Sweden from income earned in Sweden. Such income does not accrue nor arise in India and hence not taxable in India. Hence, the addition of Rs.6,05,56,300 u/s 69A of the Act was not justified and was factually and legally incorrect and hence the same be deleted.

3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,05,56,300 being foreign bank balances which do not accrue or arise in India. As per Section 5(2) of the Act, only income received, deemed received, accrued or deemed to accrue in India is taxable for Non-Residents. Hence, the addition of Rs,6,05,56,300 u/s 69A of the Act was not justified and was factually and legally incorrect and hence the same be deleted.

4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in wrongly rejecting the appellant's submission regarding clerical error in Schedule FA where Seva Ekonomi bank balance was incorrectly stated as Rs.4,88,73,700 instead of Rs.48,87,370. The error was bonafide and should have been corrected, reducing the disputed amount significantly. Thus direction to be given to the Assessing officer to consider the correct figure.

5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to understand that peak balances include opening balances from previous years and cannot be treated as current year income. Hence, the said addition be deleted.

6. For that the dismissal of appeal solely on the ground of name discrepancy between "Gautam Prasad" (PAN) and "Gautam Agarwal" (passport/bank accounts) is improper. This is a technical/clerical issue that should not prejudice the substantive legal rights of the appellant. Thus the appellate order passed be reversed.

7. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the application of Section 115BBE (60% tax rate) to foreign income not taxable in India. Section 115BBE cannot apply to income which is not assessable to tax in India in the first place. Thus the addition and levy of higher tax be reversed.

8. For that the Ld Assessing Officer passing the assessment order did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee hence the notice(s) issued is bad in law and the assessment order passed on the basis of such notice is bad in law and should be quashed.

9. The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963.

10. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the original return of income for AY 2017-18 on 23.03.2018 declaring total income of ₹98,250/-. Due to non-compliance with the notices and the final show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') proceeded to make an ex parte assessment to the best of his judgment. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee maintained three foreign bank accounts in Sweden (Santander