Collection and recovery

In the instant case, income had arisen in Russia and not in the UK. There was/is no bar or restriction of transfer of that income and remittance thereof from Russia to India. No such bar is pleaded or urged. The petitioners have not relied upon, claimed or stated that there was any bar and embargo in the laws of Russia against the remittance of the said income to India. In fact, it cannot be so pleaded because admittedly payments have been made by the Russian company to the petitioners and have been deposited abroad in a third country in the NatWest Bank, London. Nothing prevented or prohibited the petitioners from bringing the proceeds to India, but the petitioners-assessees by their own conduct have slashed away and kept the money in their bank accounts in London. In such circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to protection or benefit under s 220(7).

The assessee is not entitled to benefit of s 220(7), wherein the income had arisen in Russia and not in UK to assessee, there was/is no bar or restriction of transfer of that income and remittance thereof from Russia to India, but assessees by their own conduct had slashed away and kept money in their bank accounts in London — as held by DelHC in Ravina and Associates Pvt Ltd and Another v CIT and Others — In favour of: The Revenue ; Writ Petition(C) No. 328, 340/2010

Decided on: 20 April 2011