Tribunal rules in favor of assessee's residential status, dismisses taxation of global income and perquisites

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining their residential status as "not ordinarily resident" for the assessment year 2003-04. The inclusion of global income in the taxable income was deemed unnecessary due to the assessee's status. The taxation of perquisites was also dismissed as the amount in question was not considered part of the assessee's income. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order under section 263 invalid, stating it was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The order under section 263 was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the decision pronounced on August 30, 2013.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the residential status of the assessee.
2. Inclusion of global income in the taxable income.
3. Taxation of perquisites.
4. Validity of the order under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Residential Status of the Assessee:
The assessee, an employee of M/s. Morgan Stanley International Inc. of the U.S.A., claimed the status of "resident but not ordinarily resident" for the assessment year 2003-04. The Commissioner of Income-tax, however, held the assessee as a resident based on the interpretation of section 6(6) of the Income-tax Act at that point in time, directing the Assessing Officer to consider the global income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's status as "not ordinarily resident" was supported by the Supreme Court judgment in Pradip J. Mehta v. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 231 (SC), which clarified that the assessee was not resident in India for 9 out of 10 preceding years. Thus, the assessee's status should be "not ordinarily resident," and there was no prejudice to the Revenue.

2. Inclusion of Global Income in the Taxable Income:
The Commissioner of Income-tax directed the Assessing Officer to include the entire global salary of Rs. 7,18,15,365 in the taxable income, leading to a total income of Rs. 10,51,06,290. The assessee contended that the global income already included the Indian salary of Rs. 3,24,45,350, and excluding it would result in double addition. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had mistakenly excluded the entire global income instead of only the Indian component. However, the Tribunal concluded that the inclusion of global income was not warranted as the assessee was "not ordinarily resident."

3. Taxation of Perquisites:
The Commissioner of Income-tax considered the difference in tax on perquisites paid by the employer and shown by the assessee in the return of income. The amount of Rs. 53,19,253 was considered as perquisites. The assessee argued that this amount represented tax paid by the employer and was not his income. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the employer had confirmed the amount belonged to them, and the assessee had already refunded a part of it to the employer. Therefore, the direction to tax the perquisites was beyond the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax.

4. Validity of the Order under Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax:
The Tribunal examined whether the order under section 263 was valid. The Commissioner of Income-tax invoked section 263 against the order under section 154, which had excluded the global income erroneously. The Tribunal found that the proceedings under section 263 were not justified as the original assessment order already included the global income, and the mistake in the order under section 154 could have been rectified without invoking section 263. The Tribunal concluded that the order under section 263 was bad in law as it was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order under section 263 dated March 30, 2010, and allowed the appeal, concluding that the assessee was "not ordinarily resident," and there was no prejudice to the Revenue. The order pronounced on August 30, 2013.

---