JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— Heard. 2. This appeal is by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in case No. I.T.A. Nos. 1137 to 1140/Bang/1993 dated January 31, 2003, arising on the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant having become a 'resident' for Income Tax purposes, is entitled for the benefit under Section 115H of the Income Tax Act. 3. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 4. After hearing, we have noticed the following undisputed facts in the case. The assessee as a doctor was a non-resident and thereafter he returned, to India and he brought his earnings earned abroad and invested the same in a bank and was getting interest from such investment as NRI. He was also getting the benefit, namely, the concessional rate of income tax at 21 per cent, under Section 115E of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, he filed a declaration to change his status from NRI to resident. The assessee after filing such declaration claimed certain reliefs under Section 115H of the Income Tax Act. The relief claimed by the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer, against which the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which appeal came to be allowed on May 21, 1993. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, which appeal came to be allowed on the ground that in view of the declaration filed by the assessee, the assessee was not entitled for deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the assessee. 5. According to learned Counsel for the assessee, the Tribunal did not consider that even after furnishing the declaration by the assessee, the assessee was not entitled to claim benefit under Chapter VI-A and that the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal have committed an error in not considering the provisions of Section 115H of the Act, since the assessee has not got converted the assets brought by him from abroad into Indian currency. Therefore, he requests this Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and confirm the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Revenue and after examining the provisions of Section 115H, we have noticed that the assessee who brought the foreign exchange and had invested the same in a bank in fixed deposit, has converted the same into Indian rupee and is earning interest on such investment made in the bank. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 115H of the. Income Tax Act, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the Revenue and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. It is not in dispute that the assessee having filed a declaration as required under law after having become a resident, is not entitled to contend that the amount invested by him in fixed deposit still has to be considered as an asset brought from abroad. We are afraid to accept the submissions of Sri Parthasarathy and, therefore, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, we answer the question of law framed by the assessee against him. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.