ITAT directs re-examination of rectification claims, rules salary earned abroad not taxable, delays appeal condoned.

The ITAT set aside the orders of the Ld CIT(A) for both assessment years, directing the AO to re-examine the rectification claims. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's argument that the salary earned abroad is not taxable in India, emphasizing no estoppel against law. The delay in filing the appeal for AY 2009-10 was condoned based on a Madras High Court case precedent. Both appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, providing relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging orders of Ld CIT(A) confirming rejection of rectification applications u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Analysis:
The appellant, a non-resident, challenged the decision of Ld CIT(A) confirming the rejection of rectification applications filed u/s 154 of the Act for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The appellant declared salary earned outside India under "Income from salary" in the return of income, claiming it as deduction under Chapter VIA, resulting in nil taxability. However, the AO restricted the deduction, leading to tax demands. The appellant filed a revised return for AY 2010-11 omitting salary income and deduction, pending processing. The rectification petitions were rejected by the AO and Ld CIT(A) on grounds of no apparent mistake. The appellant argued that the salary earned abroad is not taxable in India under section 5(2) of the Act, emphasizing no estoppel against law. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's submissions, noting the income erroneously offered constitutes a mistake apparent from record.

Regarding the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2009-10, the ITAT referred to a Madras High Court case emphasizing that if an appeal is adjudicated on merits despite delay, refusing to condone the delay is erroneous. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the Ld CIT(A) orders for both years, directing the AO to re-examine the rectification claims. For AY 2010-11, the ITAT suggested resolving the issue through the processed revised return. Ultimately, both appeals were treated as allowed for statistical purposes, providing relief to the appellant.

---