TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stand in all these years. This stand was fully agreed to by the Ld. AR. Similarly qua the assessee's COs in 2002-03 to 2005-06 assessment years the common stand of the parties was that the arguments advanced for CO-207/Del/2013 in 2002-03 assessment year would address the remaining COs. 3. The hearing in the present appeals took place on various dates from 29.05.2014 to 01.09.2014 and the parties have been heard at length wherein in order to sum up the issues, written submissions sought to be placed on record by the parties were permitted which were repeatedly revised/modified and supplemented right till the last date. 4. The relevant facts of the case as are emerging from the assessment orders common to all the years are that Search & Seizure operations u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in the case of the assessee on 12.09.2007. Referring to the facts as discussed for 2008-09 assessment year as the lead order as per the common stand of the parties has been passed by the CIT(A) in the said year and taking note of the fact that in the arguments advanced by the parties focus has been maintained on the said order we deem it appropriate to first address the facts as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, London of the assessee's report that he has lost certain belongings on 4.2.2009. The report is not indicative of what all belongings the assessee lost in his visit. Moreover, it is a common practice everywhere , particularly in common law countries to give the details of the passport lost, in the complaint, including the name of the issuing authority, date of issue, expiry date etc. Nothing of that sort was found from the so called report of the Lost Office, London. Thirdly, the assessee contended that the original passport was verified by the Intelligence Wing during the post search enquiry. However, no such finding has been recorded by the intelligence wing in their finding on the residential status of the assessee." 4.2. In view of the above the AO held as under:- "Hence it is held that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of establishing that he has stayed in India for less than 182 days in assessment years from 1999-2000 to 2008-09. Therefore, he is a 'resident' as per the provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.3. Against the said conclusion the assessee advanced detailed submissions before the AO which have been reproduced in para 6 to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial year, or (ii) His aggregate number of day's stay in India during such financial year should be less than 182 days. In other words, he can come to India in every financial year after his departure in the initial year and can stay in India for a maximum period of 181 days without losing his status of being considered as Non Resident. (v) Thus, in view of above provisions, the residential status of the assessee stands determined here as under: Residential Status for the Assessment Year 1998-99 The assessee was in India for a period or periods aggregating in all for more than 182 days. Thus, he became 'Resident' as per provisions of section 6 (1)(a) of the Income Tax, 1 961. The said fact was clearly highlighted in the returns of income filed for the said assessment year. Residential Status for the Assessment Year 1 999-2000 when he permanently left India for employment outside India: Clause 6 (l)(a) It is on record that the stay of the assessee during the financial year 1 998-99 in India was less than 1 82 days. Since the assessee was in India during the relevant years for a period or periods amounting in all to less than 1 82 days, he would be con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation 'a' of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the financial year 1998-99 relevant to the assessment year 1999- 2000. Residential Status [or the Assessment Year 2000-2001 onwards The number of day's stay of the assessee during the Assessment Year 2000-01 to Assessment year 2008-09 is as under :- Assessment Year Previous Year Days Outside India Days in India Residential Status Remarks 2000-2001 1999- 2000 191 175 Non-Resident (As per section 6(1)(c) read with explanation 'a') Stayed in India for less than 182 days for each Previous year and continuously having UAE Residency Visa Since 1998. 2001-2002 2000- 2001 188 177 2002-2003 2001- 2002 202 163 2003-2004 2002-2003 193 172 2004-2005 2003- 2004 198 168 2005- 02006 2004- 2005 190 175 2006-2007 2005- 2006 193 172 2007-2008 2006- 2007 188 177 2008-2009 2007- 2008 188 177 It is hereby clarified that the assessee has included both i. e. the day of arrival in India as well as the day of de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reliance was also placed on the legal opinion of Sh. S.D.Kapila, Advocate and two retired Chief Commissioner of Income Tax namely Sh. Ashwani Kumar Garg and Sh. V.K.Aggarwal in support of the submissions of the assessee as advanced before the AO these are extracted hereunder:- "............................................... All the above opinions are in sync with the view of the assessee and all of them are of the opinion that the assessee being a non-resident, would be liable to pay tax in India on his Indian income only and not on the foreign income for all the assessment years beginning from 1999-2000 till 2008-09. They also opined that since India is having Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with UAE, the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee as provided in section 90(2) of the I.T. Act. Otherwise he will be governed for his tax liability by the provisions of DTAA. Therefore, the global income of the assessee cannot be taxed India except the Indian income. The opinions are considered and placed on record. 6.2. The assessee has also taken the help of the provisions of DTAA between India and UAE to canvass h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sustainable for the reasons mentioned below:- a) the assessee has allegedly entered into an agreement with M/s Westmead Holdings Limited which is a company registered in Canada. The nomenclature of the agreement is of "employment contract". The contract was signed in London on the 1st day of June. 1998. Neither of the parties of the contract is based in Dubai or locals of UAE. c) two parties from two different countries have signed an agreement in a third country and subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of fourth country before any activities are done in the fourth country. d) The word remuneration conveys a relationship of employer and employee between the parties. In the case of the assessee it is very difficult to say that there was ever a relationship of employer and employee except the nomenclature in the agreement. Few of the bank advices of the remittance bank of the employer were furnished. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee refused to furnish the copies of the bank account where the so called remuneration was received. These advices also indicate that payments to the assessee are being remitted/sent from the bank of the company situate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....maintained outside India and the same has not been remitted through the NRE account of the assessee. The assessee refused to give the source of the above amount stating that he not obligated as per law to give the details. Hence the above amount is treated as the income of the assessee for the relevant year." (Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/-) 5. Aggrieved by this the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) as per the lead order in 2008-09 assessment year summarized the facts as under:- 1.3. "The facts in brief are as under:- 1.3.1. A search was conducted u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 12.09.2007 on the Emaar MGF Group, New Delhi of which the appellant is a promoter and at appellant's local residential premises at B -101, Greater Kailash -I, New Delhi-110048. That post search, a statement of the appellant was recorded, which is also on record. As per the copy of the Panchnama, placed on record, certain documents were seized which do not form the basis of making the addition by the A O. while completing the assessment. 1.3.2. The appellant is an Indian citizen holding an Indian Passport, regularly assessed to tax in India, till A Y. 1998-99 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rected the appellant to duly inform his bankers in India and companies in which he is a director for the change of the status from Resident to Non-Resident. 1.3.6 The appellant, as noted from record, has placed on record evidence to the effect that he had taken on lease an Apartment No. 230, Golden Sand II, Dubai on March 3rd 1999 for purposes of his residence in Dubai. 1.3.7 The appellant in the returns of income for each of the A. Y.'s 1999-2000 onwards, filed before the date of search, disclosed and stated detailed particulars of his stay in India while claiming his status as Non-Resident. The stay in India as stated by the A.O. in his Assessment Order is summarized as under: Asstt. Year Previous Year Days Outside India Days in India Residential Status Remarks 1999-2000 1998-1999 189 176 Non- Residential (As per Section 6(1)(c) read with Explanation 'a') Left India on 14/08/1998 for the purpose of employment outside India and with an intention to settle permanently abroad. Stayed in India for less than 182 days for each Previous year continuously having UAE Residency Visa Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t extend the scope of the Section by granting the benefits of clause (b) to all the subsequent years when the non-resident Indian visits India. Accordingly, the A.O. held that the appellant is a resident for each of the A. Y.'s from 2002-03 to 2008-09. (iv). In Para 10, the AO. has contended and held that the genuineness of the Employment Agreement is suspect and it cannot be concluded that the appellant is getting remuneration in UAE. 1.4.2. The appellant had during the course of assessment proceedings filed various letters dealing with each of the aforesaid items and the contentions of the appellant before the AO. were re-iterated before me, namely:- The original Passports detailed as under were duly produced before the Intelligence Authorities and copies notarized on 19.12.2007 were filed during course of proceedings:- * The leaflets / pages in the passport issued on 26.02.2003 valid till 25.02.2013 had been exhausted and accordingly a new booklet was issued by the Authorities on 07.11.2006. * Passport No Z-028671 issued on 7.11.2006 at Dubai. * Passport No Z-1384925 for the period 26.02.2003 to 6.11.2006 issued on 26.02.2003 at Dubai. * Passport No Z-04....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were forwarded to the appellant who has filed rejoinder on record." 5.2. The submissions of the assessee addressing the objections posed by the AO in the Remand Report of the AO are found discussed in para 1.5 at page 7 & 8 of the CIT(A)'s order. Considering the same, the CIT(A) vide para 1.6 to para 1.9.2 accepted the assessee's claim in respect to status as non-resident Indian. Consequently the reliance placed upon Double Taxation Agreement between India and UAE was left undecided. The ground addressing the remittances made to India in view of the non-resident status was also decided in assessee's favour vide paras 2 to 2.2 as on account of the status being determined as non-resident Indian the remittances made to India from the overseas bank accounts by the assessee to his Indian bank accounts were held to be not taxable. 6. Aggrieved by this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. On the first date of hearing, it was submitted by the CIT DR, Mr. Ramesh Chandra that let the Ld. AR first argue the COs filed and thereafter he would address the same alongwith the issues arising in the departmental appeals. It was pointed out by the Ld. CIT DR that the Cos filed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n as the son became aware of the legal position the COs have been filed. In the circumstances it was his prayer that the delay caused may be condoned as the late assessee represented through the legal heir was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the cross-objection within time. 8.5. Apart from placing reliance on the affidavit dated 13.11.2013, reliance was also placed upon the order of the Tribunal passed by Co-ordinate Bench dated 07.04.2014 in the case of Siddharth Sareen vs ACIT in ITA No-3010 & 3011/Del/2011 and CO-205 & 206/Del/2013 rendered by the "G" Bench wherein the delay caused on account of identical reasons in the case of the legal heir himself in his personal appeals of 855 days on identical reasoning had been condoned. Accordingly relying upon the facts, circumstances and precedent it was submitted that the delay may be condoned. 9. The Ld. DR objecting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the assessee submitted that there is nothing on record to show that Sh. Siddharth Sareen was the only legal heir as evidently the Late Mr. Sudhir Sareen was survived by his wife and two daughters apart from Sh. Siddharth Sareen. Further referring to the affidavit fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he late assessee it was submitted had bequeathed the ownership of shares in various companies specifically mentioned by him in India and abroad giving details of assets movable and immovable in India including details of his various bank accounts to his only son, Sh. Siddharth Sareen. The late assessee it was submitted has recorded at page 8 that he is not bequeathing anything to his daughters and to his wife only utensils, paintings, decorations, jewellery and some specific shares in his portfolio mentioned alongwith user rights of residential property at London and rental receipts from property at Delhi to his spouse that too only for her lifetime and everything else to his only son thereafter. For ready-reference the relevant extract is reproduced hereunder :- "Both my daughters are married and are well placed in life. I have already given sufficient to both my daughters. My son-in-laws Mr. Shravan Gupta and Mr. Siddharth Gupta are very wealthy in their own right. I have gifted my daughter Mrs. Parul Gupta, 2499 Shares in the Private Limited Company Oriole Exports Pvt. Ltd. Therefore I am not bequeathing anything to my said two daughters Mrs. Parul Gupta W/o Siddharth Gupta a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant Late Sudhir Sareen Through L/R Siddharth Sareen (emphasis in the present proceedings) 11.4. It was pointed out that against this order the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the capacity of Sh. Siddharth Sareen as a legal heir for impleadment has not been challenged and only for obstructing the CO the challenge is being posed. 11.5. Referring to page 19 of the Paper Book in the CO filed it was submitted that the return for 2013-14 was filed at 30.07.2013 by Siddharth Sareen as legal heir of Late Sh. Sudhir Sareen as would be evident from paper book page 20 to 23. Which would show that in 2011-12 assessment year the AO records in his order dated 31.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) that in the return filed for Late Sh. Sudhir Sareen the status of 'non-resident' has been accepted by him. 11.6. Referring further to page 21 which is a copy of letter dated 25.06.2013 addressed to the AO by the Ld. AR pointing the facts that Sh. Sudhir Sareen had expired on 21.02.2013 and as per the deceased's Will executed on 20.07.2010, it was requested that notice may instead be addressed to Sh. Siddharth Sareen who was the legal heir in terms of the Will....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 in paper book-1 in the COs filed). Apart from that reliance was also placed on the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of MGF Automobiles Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No-4212 & 4213/Del/2011 dated 28.06.2013 amongst others. On facts it was submitted that in view of the stated legal position in the case of Siddharth Sareen itself which would constitute a binding precedent on facts and law apart from the precedent in law laid down by MGF Automobiles Ltd. and Kusum Gupta and various other decisions cited in the written submissions it was submitted that the proceedings deserve to be quashed as nothing incriminating was found in the course of the search as the assessments which stood finalized could not be disturbed u/s 153A of the Act. For the said purpose, attention was invited to the grounds raised in the COs filed by the assessee in each of these four years which are identical except for the difference in the amounts of the remittance from his bank accounts abroad to his Indian bank accounts which is a common fact in each of the years. Apart from this common ground in all the years in 2004-05 and 2005-06 assessment years the distinguishing feature is that the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and carrying us through the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order, it was his submission, that the entire arguments and the case of the Revenue is based on the changed status which the Revenue wants to pin upon the assessee and there is no reference to any documents found in the search as a result of which the additions are made. The additions it was argued are based on recorded entries and since addition is not as a result of any documents found in the search, it cannot be sustained in law. For the said purpose attention was invited to para 10.3 of the assessment order which specifically brings out this fact. For ready-reference the same is reproduced:- 10.3. "During the year the assessee has shown an amount of Rs. 43,589,983/- in his capital account as NRE income and claimed it as exempt from being taxed in India because he is an NRI. In the event of his residential status determined as resident his entire income becomes taxable in India as per section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence an amount of Rs. 43,589,983/- is added to the income of the assessee for the relevant year." 16. The Ld. CIT DR at the outset submitted that the delay may not be condoned fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can the finding based on the facts where primary evidence is produced before the CIT(A) be relied upon for the years where primary evidence was never produced by the assessee. 16.4. It was his submission that the said argument is notwithstanding the fact that the consistent claim of the department in each of the years where primary evidence is produced or not produced remained the same that the relevant provision of the Act have been incorrectly appreciated by the CIT(A). Infact it was his arguments that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given a categoric finding whether the assessee's case is covered in Explanation (a) or (b) of section 6(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 16.5. It was also his submission that the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) in para 1.4.5 that the original documents were seen by the Investigation Wing is not borne out from the record and infact in the course of the hearings he offered that the Ld. AR may go through the Appraisal Report and point out where such a finding is given. 16.6. Referring to pages 112 to 118 of the paper book it was stated which is the "purported" salary certificate from Westmead Holdings Ltd. Emphasis was laid by the Ld. DR th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.11.Carrying us through the facts as recorded in the assessment order it was his submission that if the facts for 2001-02 assessment year are seen than for almost equal number of days, the assessee has stayed in India and visited abroad. It was his argument that in the FYs 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006- 07, the record would show that the assessee has gone abroad approximately 16 times; 14 times; 18 times; 22 times; 22 times and 18 times respectively and accordingly the facts would show that the assessee's normal place of residence was in India and he only visited abroad from India. Accordingly it was his submission that his status has rightly been considered as resident in India. It was his argument that in the facts of the present case, the CIT(A) has curiously relied upon both the clauses of the Explanation to section 6(1)(c) without addressing under which clause of the explanation he has considered that the assessee's case falls under. It was his vehement plea that the burden for establishing its claim that he is a nonresident is on the assessee which has not been discharged. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was a non-resident is disproved by this spontaneous reply of the assessee itself. It was his stand that when a question is asked to a person to introduce himself the spontaneous answer is normally the correct answer consequently the assessee identifies his normal place as resident of India. 17. Ld. AR intervened that when the statement is recorded during the search at the residence of the assessee the said address where the statement is recorded has to be mentioned. It was contended that it does not mean that for the tax purposes the assessee has given up its claim of being a non-resident. A reading of the complete answer it was submitted would show that he has also given L-20, Emirates Hills, Dubai address as his address. It was his submission that infact Question no-2 would show that he has stated that he is a non-resident Indian since 1998 which claim is supported by his income tax returns and copies of passport. The selective reading of documents it was submitted in order to mislead the Bench will not bring out the full and correct facts. Similarly the reading of the panchnama to submit that the passport was not found by the search party from his residence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xecuted Employment Agreement dated 1.06.1998 with West Mead Holdings Ltd. UK which required him to be working from Dubai UAE. 19.1.2.It was submitted the assessee obtained Resident Visa from UAE No.2470845 dt. 28.07.1998 & entered UAE on 14.8.1998 as would be evidenced from the Stamp on the copy of the Passport filed. The Resident Visa it was contended continued to be valid till 2013. 19.1.3. It was submitted that only as a result of permanently setting as a result of employment and obtaining Visa etc that the assessee from AY 1999-2000 onwards filed Returns of income in the status of "Non Resident" which have been accepted over the years. 19.1.4.Inviting attention to the paper book filed it was submitted that acting on the employment after the assessee moved a petition dated 10.08.1996 u/s 29 of FERA seeking permission from RBI to retain assets in India. On receipt of the permission the Resident Bank Accounts in India were converted to Non-resident accounts as per instructions of RBI and the Companies in which the assessee was a shareholder were also duly intimated this fact. 19.1.5.The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee continued to be in Employment till 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said person available at page 343 of the paper book. The said document it was submitted is a photocopy of the passport of Mr. John Ronald Maccines and would show that he is a Canadian citizen. It was submitted that the assessee prior to moving permanently to Dubai, UAE had worked as a consultant in India as a representative of Rintra Cont in the field of oil, commodities fertilizers etc. in India, Far East and South East Asian countries, UAE it was submitted is a rice consumer country which sources its requirements from India and Thailand and the assessee as a result of his employment travelled to various countries in the course of the business for which he was employed and apart from rice various other commodities like fertilizers and other petroleum products etc. were also dealt with. Pages 296 to 330 of the paper book it was submitted contained the copy of the Income Tax returns for the assessment year 1999-2000 to 2008-09 assessment year and in the computation of income for assessment year 2002-03 as in the other years, the following note had been written addressing the status of the assessee. These returns it was submitted have been filed in due course over the yea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollow strict know year customer (KYC) norms so as to ensure that funds are not moved for any terrorist activity. Similarly at pages 513-514 onwards it was submitted would show that after mentioning the specific account No. of the assessee customer the date on which remittance is made and the balance in the accounts are found duly recorded therein. The source of funds it was submitted would be evident on perusal and would show that they have come from Canada, New York, Dubai & London where the officers of Westmead Holdings were inexistence and from various business dealings etc. At pages 603 -608 it was submitted is the year-wise details of the statement showing salary income/balance due to bank/loan taken or realization on sale of investment during the FY 2001-02 to 2007-08 and amount remitted to India. Attention was invited to Paper Book No-95 which is letter dated 10.08.1998 u/s 29 of the FERA Act addressed to Reserve Bank of India seeking permission to hold in India the assets, accounts and Directorship etc. as Non- Resident mentioning the specific passport held in the capacity of India citizen. Referring to grant of resident Visa on the basis of which the assessee expressed his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same the expertise and the knowledge of the assessee and why the said consultant for the multinationals in India was chosen stands addressed. It is due to the trust reposed in him that he was employed for which the late assessee permanently moved to the UAE and needed to travel there from to various places in the business interest of the said concern in pursuance to clause 10 of the Agreement referred to by the Ld. CIT DR. The genuineness of the transactions it was submitted would stand addressed by the experience and knowledge of the assessee. For ready-reference we reproduce the first five clauses of the Employment Agreement entered into with Mr.John Ronald Macinnes relied upon by the Ld. AR:- 1. " The First Party is engaged in the business of trading of commodities such as rice, wheat, sugar, soyabean and all other agricultural, floriculture, Oil, petroleum, Fertilizer and Chemical related products all over the world. 2. The First Party duly recognizes the vast expertise and experience of the Second Party to establish, develop and administer such business. The First Party also accolades the work performed by the Second Party related to its business interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree and started his own business of exporting garments primarily to Europe and North America. The said business it was submitted was incorporated as M/s Oriole Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Niryat Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter the assessee went into various consultancy agreements with different concerns and thus when he had built up a reputation, expertise and knowledge he was finally offered an employment as C.E.O. in the middle East. It was submitted that the assessee already had a sufficient experience in working with and dealing with various multi national companies for almost 20 years. It was emphasized that no fresh material and incriminating material has been found in the search and despite the arguments of the Revenue attempting to arouse suspicions by selective reading of the evidences no argument has been advanced stating that any incriminating material was found in the detailed arguments advanced. Reliance was placed on the case of Suresh Nanda stated to be identical on facts and the decisions in Abdul Razzack, Avatar Singh and various other decisions cited. 19.6. Addressing the arguments of the Ld. CIT DR that primary evidence is not available, it was his submission that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be a crime and since the expired passport already stood renewed by the Dubai, Indian High Commission on 07.11.2006 on which passport the assessee was travelling in London on that date during his stay in London, the occasion accordingly to correspond with the Indian High Commission in London did not arise. In the circumstances it was submitted the onus caste upon the assessee in regard to stay outside India for the requisite number of days arising due to employment abroad accordingly stood discharged in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of D.K.Dhote which has been relied upon before the CIT(A) and considered by him. 19.9. Inviting attention to the compilation consisting of Annexure A-1 to Annexure J-15 the Ld. AR submitted that the A-1 & A-2 makes a reference to the chronological date-wise events linking these with the relevant pages of the paper books filed which are necessary to be taken into consideration for deciding the issues. The same is reproduced hereunder:- 19.10.The summary of admitted facts relied upon by the Ld. AR attached as Annexure B-1 brought to our notice by the Ld. AR is reproduced hereunder:- FACTS In the matter of :- ACIT Vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in AY 2011-12. [Copy of order attached] 19.11.Annexure B-2 & C-1 it was submitted addresses the remittance made to India. Since no arguments controverting these facts have been advanced by the Revenue the relevant facts are not reproduced. The year-wise details from 2009-10 assessment year to 1999-2000 showing the no. of days in India and the status disclosed and accepted by the department in 143(1) since 2001-02 assessment year to 1999-2000 assessment years has been addressed in Annexure D-1, the same is reproduced hereunder for ready-reference:- Details of Stay in India of Late Mr. Sudhir Sareen since AY 1999-2000 to 2009-10 ITA Nos 3120-3126 / 2011 & 6411/2012 19.12. The Ld. AR carrying us through the assessment order emphasized the fact that the CIT(A) in para 1.4.5 has accepted the arguments of the assessee that the original passport issued at Dubai on 07.11.2006 was produced before him and the AO has verified the original passport and confirmed the stay during the 07.11.2006 to 31.03.2008 having been correctly disclosed in the income tax return. Consequently the onus in regard thereto for the period being less than 182 days stands discharged. Referring to the said p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
............................................................................................. It is further submitted that the assessee has already furnished the details of stay in India and abroad from financial year 1998-99 to 2005-06 in his computation of income filed along with return of income for the assessment year 2006-07. The minor difference in number of days as furnished earlier was due to the fact that there were some clerical and calculation error, which now rectified. Details of stay in abroad for the financial year 2000- 01 to 2006-07 along with coloured copies of passports held by the assessee are enclosed herewith as Annexure - 1----- Keeping in view of the provisions of section 6 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & its explanation and the fact that the assessee did not stay in India more than 181 days in any financial from 2000-01 to 2006-07, the assessee is not a resident of India and hence only liable to pay tax on income accrued or arise in India as per section 9 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." (emphasis on the present proceedings) 19.14. The year-wise details alongwith specifying the specific page of the passport addressing the date of arrival and the date of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ets in India; is a director in various companies all these facts and arguments are of no relevance in the facts of the case as the criteria to be considered has been laid down by the Statute as only number of days. The law is very clear which holds that for considering the same it is only the duration of the stay in India which is the relevant criteria after being outside India is established. In the facts of the present case it was submitted that there is a plethora of documentary evidence in the nature of resident visa issued by UAE in favour of the assessee pursuant to the employment agreement acting on which due permission under FERA u/s 29 from RBI have been sought and acted upon; the evidence of having stayed abroad evidenced by lease agreement initially for one year which was renewed periodically and ultimately the assessee residing in a house owned by his company etc. sufficiently demonstrates that the assessee has been settled abroad permanently. For the said purpose attention was invited to Annexure E-2, E-3 & E-4. These are reproduced for ready-reference:- (a) "Copy of Employment Contract dated 01.06.1998 with West Mead Holdings Ltd. effective. (b) Copy of Passport....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and residing abroad and visits India for the purposes of monitoring/managing his investments and being with his family members from time." 19.15.3.It was submitted that as a result of this and taking note of more or less identical facts into consideration the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sh. Suresh Nanda vs ACIT, ITA No-1428 to 1430/Del/2012 alongwith the Cross Objections has held that the assessee residing abroad on visits to India the duration of which was less than 182 days continues to enjoy the status of NRI. In the said decision reliance has been placed upon the judgement of the Kerala High Court in the case of O. Abdul Razack reported in 337 ITR 350 which had held at para 8 that "going abroad for the purposes of employment only" means that the visit and stay abroad should not be for other purposes such as tourists; medical treatment; studies or vacation and is only for employment as has been considered by circular No-684 of CBDT. Referring to para 8.1 it was pointed out that it lays down that the basis for determination of residential status can be only number of days which are to be considered when an Indian citizen goes abroad for employment. Accordingl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tracted in Annexure F2 & F3 is reproduced hereunder for ready-reference:- a. "Residential status is always determined for the Previous Year because the assessee has to determine the total income of the Previous Year only. In other words, as the tax is on the income of a particular Previous Year, the enquiry and determination of the residence qualification must confine to the facts obtaining in that Previous Year. b. If a person is resident in India in a Previous Year in respect of any source of income, he shall be deemed to be resident in India in the Previous Year relevant to the Assessment Year in respect of each of his other sources of income. c. Relevant Previous Year means, the Previous Year for which residential status is to be determined. d. It is not necessary that the stay should be for a continuous period. e. It is not necessary that the stay should be at one place in India. f. A person may be resident of more than one country for any Previous Year. g. Citizenship of a country and residential status of the country are two separate concepts. A person may be an Indian national/citizen but may not be a resident in India and vice versa.. h. No. of days....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the number of days of the stay of assessee in India are less than 182 days. In these facts and circumstances the assessee's argument on this issue deserve to be upheld. 8.3 In view of the facts, circumstances and case laws cited and referred above on behalf of assessee we hold that the determinative test for the status of Non-resident being number of days of stay in India and in assessee's case in these three years, the days of stay being less than 182 days; the status to be applied in this case is to be held as Non-Resident as claimed by assessee. Thus, the assessee will be liable to tax on income accrued in India only. The assessee's grounds in this behalf are allowed. 19.18. Summing up this argument it was contended that notwithstanding the fact that the assessee has established its status over the years wherein complete disclosures for year to year has been made and para 3 of the Remand Report accepts that for 2007-08 and 2008-09 assessment years original passport was produced. It was contended that it is not the case of the Revenue that the secondary evidence relied upon for the years for which original passport was not available consisting of notarized copies was fra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of Bihar relied upon by the Ld. CIT DR in the facts of the present case it was submitted is of no help to the Revenue as the statute is very clear and judicial precedent thereon is available. The circular of the CBDT copy of which is placed at page 289-291 dated 10.06.1994 it was submitted is binding on the AO. 19.22. Addressing the reason as to why the passport was notarized on 19.02.2007, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had appeared before the ADI on 11.12.2007 alongwith the original passport and photocopy thereof and the ADI required the assessee to file notarized copies of the original passport instead of merely filing photocopies of the original passport which was shown. The request it was stated on query was an oral request of the ADI but the fact remains that in pursuant thereto notarized copies were filed and the fact that passports were scrutinized by ADI is evident from the letter addressed to the said officer who pointed out some mistakes and which correction were carried out and again relied upon before the ADI who on scrutinizing was satisfied, as no infirmity has been pointed out by him. It was submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s signed by the lessor and at best would throw light only for 2000- 01 assessment year. Ld. AR intervened on behalf of the assessee stating that the same was renewed and copies of renewal are available on record and infact thereafter the assessee has lived in the house owned by his company evidenced from the address in the passport. 22.3. Similarly the claim that right from 1999-2000 assessment year , the assessee has been filing its return as a non-resident India it was submitted is of no relevance as the returns were finalized u/s 143(1) and not under scrutiny. Moreover the same were not accompanied by the copy of the passport. For similar reasons the arguments that disclosure of stay over the period of time has been made in the normal course much before the date of search it was submitted are not relevant evidences. 22.4. It was his stand that the claim of the assessee that he left India in terms of employment contract with Westmead Holdings Ltd. cannot be accepted as the assessee has had a long association with Mr.John Ronald Macinnes since 1998 and reliance by the assessee has been placed upon contract with Rintra Cont which lasted 1993-98 accordingly Mr.John Ronald Maci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns filed. 24.1. Considering the arguments and the material available on record in the context of the grounds raised by the respective parties, we find that in order to address the same, finding on the following issues on facts and law framed by us is warranted in the present proceedings:- Issue (1) Whether departmental objections in the present proceedings to Sh. Siddharth Sareen filing Cross-objections as legal heir of Late Sh. Sudhir Sareen are maintainable? Issue (2) Whether the delay of 855 days in filing of the Cross-objections can be condoned in each of the years on the facts of the case? Issue(3) Whether the Cross-objections have to be allowed in the respective years where admittedly no incriminating material was found during the search conducted upon the assessee or for considering the entire factual material the conclusion there on should be deferred for the time being? Issue(4) Whether the status of the assessee can be varied for 2002-03 to 2008-09 assessment years where admittedly no incriminating material was found? Issue(5) In case the Cross Objection of the assessee is not allowed, then whether the department appeals are to be allowed on facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; legal heir. Raising of arguments dehors the facts is of no avail. No argument on fact has been advanced to contend that the will dated 14.07.2010 copy of which had been filed alongwith the letter dated 20.05.2013 addressed to the Registry has been contested by the daughters or the wife of Late Sh. Sudhir Sareen. Infact certificate dated 01.06.2014 of Smt. Sunita Sareen, wife of the deceased authorizing Sh. Siddharth Sareen to act, represent, in Courts etc. has been placed the record. The said document was filed in the course of the hearing and the Ld. AR by way of abundant caution was also required to file proof of the properties devolving on Sh.Siddharth Sareen in pursuance to the Will which were also filed. It is further seen as per paper book 2 appears in page 21 the CO filed that letter dated 25.06.2013 addressed by Ld. AR informing the DCIT/DCWT of the demise of Sh. Sudhir Sareen with the request to bring Sh. Siddharth Sareen as his legal heir on record. The said request was acted upon and assessment was concluded after bringing Sh. Siddharth Sareen as legal heir on record by the AO. In view of these facts and evidences the arguments of the Ld. CIT DR dehors facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e COs in time is an argument which we decline to address. Suffice it to say the objections could have been worded more happily and are not in good taste. Without commenting on the same, we are inclined to accept the arguments of the Ld. AR that an assessee suffering from a prolonged illness who finally does expire would necessarily be more concerned with doctor's appointments then legal appointments. The preoccupation with health as opposed to legal affairs is not an unreasonable explanation in the peculiar facts of the case. The explanation on behalf of the son who comes on record as the legal heir in the peculiar facts of the present case after the demise of his father where tax matters were looked after by the father in his life time cannot be faulted for the delay in filing the COs as the death of a father after a prolonged illness would normally come as a shock to a son and the attention of Late Sh. Sudhir Sareen remaining engaged with doctors on his visit to India and other countries who finally expired in Singapore is a scenario where a family can legitimately argue that it was left in a state of loss, confusion and flux and there is no reason to disbelieve the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the additions are made solely on account of the change of status from NRI to resident. It is an admitted fact that no document was found in the course of the search conducted. 27.1. Apart from this as per record which is also not disputed the assessments for 2002-03 to 2005-06 assessment years stood concluded as in some years intimation u/s 143(1) is available on record and in all the cases the last date for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) has since long passed. These facts are available on record and have not been disputed by the department. The only argument raised is that these were not scrutiny assessments. The judicial precedent in the case of Siddharth Sareen by way of the order dated 11.04.2014 by the Co-ordinate Bench is available on record which has considered the decision of the Co-ordinate Benches in the case of MGF Automobile Ltd (cited supra); ACIT vs Pradeep Kumar (cited supra); Kusum Gupta vs DCIT (Third Member) (cited supra). Apart from that before us reliance has been placed amongst others on the following decisions Gunvardhan Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. (copy in the CO Paper Book 2 page 25-35) order dated 16.01.2014 in Sanjay Aggarwal vs DCIT 47 taxmann.co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essments/reassessments already finalized for those assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Act. By a circular No.8 of 2003 dated 18.09.2003 (See 263 ITR (St) 61 at 107) the CBDT has clarified that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the proceedings pending in appeal, revision or rectification proceedings against finalized assessment/reassessment shall not abate. It is only because, the finalized assessment/reassessments do not abate, the appeal, revision or rectification pending against finalized assessments/reassessments would not abate. Therefore, the argument of the revenue, that on initiation of proceedings under section 153A, the assessments/reassessments finalized for the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted. Similarly on annulment of assessment made under Section 153A(1) what stand revived is the pending assessment/reassessment proceedings which stood abated as per section 153A(1). 11. In the present case, as contended by Shri Mani, learned counsel for the assessee, the assessment for the assessment year 1998-99 was finalized on 29.12.2000 and search was conducted thereafter on 3.12.2003.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. The above proposition propounded appears to be acceptable however we by way of abundant caution would deem it appropriate to defer our decision on the issue and instead also consider the other issues framed by us in the present proceedings so as to address the departmental grievance and accordingly address this issue subsequently, if need be. 28. In view of the fact that the answer to the issue framed in issue number-3 has been left unanswered for the time being the answer to the issue framed in issue number-4 is postponed for the time being. 29. Proceeding to the issue framed in issue No-6 requiring us to consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the departmental appeals in 2002-03 to 2006-07 assessment years are to be allowed keeping in mind the arguments of the Ld. CIT DR in urging that the Employment Agreement is sham and other related arguments including the major distinction of non availability of original passport from the lead order passed by the CIT(A) in 2008-09 assessment year where the original passport was available. 29.1. In order to address the same it is seen that the assessee has relied upon the following evidences addres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be sustained. The long past history of the asessee not only with Mr. John Ronald Maccines related companies but even other unrelated multi-national companies addressing the experience, knowledge, exposure and understanding stands unassailed on record. The facts and submissions advanced before the AO vide letter dated 17.12.2009 at pages 28 to 41 stands unrebutted on record. The argument that due to the past over 20 years of experience in dealing with commodities, petroleum products, fertilizers etc. as consultant in India for business in India, Far East, South East etc. and the consequent decision of Mr. John Ronald Maccines to offer employment to the assessee as its C.E.O at Dubai and thus entering into an Agreement at London in the absence of any material to the contrary can not be doubted. 29.4.1.The related arguments that the agreement signed in London by an Indian and Canadian citizen per se by itself raises no doubts as the place of signing of documents settled either at mutual convenience or at the convenience of only one party does not negatively reflect on the contents of the agreements. 29.4.2.Similarly the departure of the assessee immediately one day before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. As such merely because it is issued on assessee's request it has been submitted it does not by itself show that the contents thereof are not correct. The assessee has placed on record all along the details of the remittances made to the salary account from the Westmead Holding and the same have not been controverted by the department. Accordingly we hold that in the absence of any material to the contrary the authenticity of the salary certificates stands unchallenged. 29.4.5.On considering the entire gamut of arguments, facts on record and the evidence on record we do not find any merit in the arguments of the Ld. CIT DR that the contract of employment was not genuine. 29.5. The next issue which we are required to consider expressing the grievance of the Revenue is whether on facts the claim of loss of original expired passport at London on 04.02.2009 is bonafide or is the claim of loss of passport on facts has to be rejected. 29.5.1. The department it is seen has objected to the claim being bonafide on the grounds that the letter dated 24 Feb. 2009 of the Lost Property Officer is a "solicited" document for the purposes of insurance and more importantly no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the claim of loss of the passport on facts is genuine and bonafide. 29.6. Addressing the availability of notarized photocopy of the original passport on record, it is seen as per the reply of the assessee dated 11.12.2007 addressed to the ADI post search (copy available at pages 333 to 334 at specific page 334) that response is made to some calculation mistakes of the number of days as per the dates mentioned in the passport which corrections were carried out and placed again before the ADI. The argument that it was necessitated as mistakes were noticed/pointed out by the ADI appears to be plausible. The argument that the original was shown in the post search inquiries supported by photocopies which were required to be notarized by the ADI orally in the presence of the various other material on record which we shall address subsequently also appears to be plausible. The arguments of the Ld. CIT DR that the documents were not legible for which purposes scanned copies were filed and the arguments that in the remand proceedings the copies may not have been legible have been adequately addressed by the Ld. AR who has submitted that if these were not eligible than h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Illustrations (a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original. (b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original. (c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original. (d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.'' 29.7.1. It is further seen that section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in cases mentioned hereinafter. Reference has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord and relied upon can be discarded. 29.7.3. The said issue is answered in favour of the assessee not only on the above reasoning but also on the reasoning that in the relevant information duly filed by the assessee over the years, no fault is pointed out by the Revenue when collated with the record of the Revenue. On the contrary relying on the very same facts and figures it has been sought to be argued that these visits were from India to outside India and not by a person who was "outside India" to India. The frequency of the travel or the dates mentioned or the duration claimed by the assessee stands unrebutted on record. The arguments advanced by the Revenue in the context of the wordings "being outside India" and "visit'' to India does not mean multiple visits as per the mandate of explanation (b) to section 6(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act shall be addressed separately and subsequently in the later portion of this order. 29.7.4. While coming to the said conclusion we have also seen and taken note of the contemporaneous evidences of Employment Agreement dated 01.06.1998 which we have held to be as genuine; the UAE resident Visa granted to the assessee on 28.07.1998; the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide India" as considered in explanation (b) to section 6(1)(c). The said assertion on facts by the Ld. CIT DR is not agreed to by us. The reason for so holding is found addressed from the earlier part of this order where we have addressed elaborately our reasons in holding that the assessee on account of a genuine business entered into Agreement with Mr. John Ronald Maccines and assessee shifted to Dubai in August 1998. The assessment years under consideration being 2002-03 to 2006-07 during which the stay in India as per record admittedly has been less than 182 days in each of the years as observed earlier the number of dates are not rebutted by the Revenue by any contrary evidence. All these facts and evidences have been taken into consideration and addressed at length in the earlier part of this order. Considering the judicial precedent relied upon the departmental objections that the assessee did not fall in the category of "being outside India" is held to be not sustainable. 29.10.The other overarching departmental objection to the incorrect application of Explanation (b) to section 6(1)(c) has been that the legislative intent is "visit" which means a singular v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2006 by the Indian Consullate at Dubai was produced before the CIT(A) who had remanded the same to the AO. Since facts qua the duration are not rebutted and all other arguments remained the same as in the earlier years, accordingly for similar reasons the departmental appeals are dismissed. 30.1. The detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion that the impugned order for each of the years before us is upheld have been discussed in the earlier part of this order. The arguments that on facts the impugned orders in the remaining years have largely relied upon the finding in 2008-09 assessment years, where the presence in India each of the years is less than 182 days as per the chart reproduced in the assessment orders and also the lead order, which calculation remains unassailed on record on the basis of which addressing the specific grievance of the Revenue, we have held that the orders of the CIT(A) in the respective years deserve to be upheld. We have found no fault in the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at either in the lead order or in the specific impugned orders in the years under consideration. 31. The following reasoning, discussion and finding of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r appeal is loess than 180 days. It is apparent that the Investigation Unit in post search enquiry examined the original Passport with a view to determine the period of stay of the appellant in India for purposes of determining his residential status and have after critical examination recorded the said finding. In view of the facts available on record, the overwhelming evidence, circumstantial and factual, the findings recorded by the Investigation Unit and deriving support from the judicial decision, supra, I hold that the period of stay of the appellant during the previous year is 177 days as declared by the appellant and specified in the chart forming a part of the order of the A.O. Thus, the period of stay in the previous year being less than 182 days the status of the Appellant in the year in terms of Section 6(1)(c) read with Explanation (b) of the Income Tax Act is that of non-resident." 31.2. The arguments considered for the applicability of section 6 of the Income Tax Act alongwith the facts on record are found discussed in para 1.6.1 to para 1.7.2 in the lead order. The same are reproduced hereunder:- 1.6.1 " The A.O. has next recorded a finding to the effect that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing granted a UAE resident visa bearing no. 2470845 dated 28.07.1998 and as also informing them of the intended date of departure from India with the intention of permanent settlement abroad being 14.08.1998. (d) Copy of letter of Reserve Bank of India dated 08.09.1998 confirming receipt of aforesaid letter dated 10.08.1998 and directing the appellant to inform the change of status to the Bankers, Companies in which appellant was a Director. (e) Copy of letter addressed to Banks in confirmation that the present resident banking accounts in India were converted to non-resident accounts. Further, all his foreign bank accounts specify his residence address as Dubai. (f) Cost of Air Ticket to Dubai on 14.08.1998 was duly borne by the appellant and withdrawals reflected in the Accounts. (g) Initially appellant stayed at hotels till an accommodation was taken on lease at Apartment No. 230, Golden Sand - II Dubai in term of lease Agreement placed on record. (h) Copy of certificate of salary dated 08.12.2009 issued by West Mead Holding Ltd. confirming that they had paid salary including commission to the appellant for the period August, 1998 to December 2004, which are suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esiding abroad and visits India for the purposes of monitoring / managing his investments and being with his family members from time to time. 1.8.1 The A.O. during the course of hearing, before me has reiterated his arguments as stated in the Assessment Order to the effect that the benefit of Explanation (b) is available only for one year, meaning of the word being outside India and has also submitted that by reading Explanation (b) to Section 6 of the Income Tax Act in so far as an Indian citizen and Persons of Indian Origin (PLO) are concerned the provision of Section 6 (1) (a) are redundant. He has submitted that if the language of Explanation (b0 was transposed into the Section it would read as under :- Section 6(1) (a) "An individual is said to be resident in India, if he is (a) is in India in that year for a period / period(s) amounting 182 days or more (c) having within four year preceding that year being an India for 365 days or more and 60 days or more in that year (a case of Indian Citizen / PIO 60 days to be read as 182 days. The A.O. thus argued that upon a reading of the aforesaid, the 182 days appearing in clause (a) is redundant and of no consequence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....izance was taken of the following decisions for the proposition that the circular of CBDT was binding on the AO:- 1. Navnit Lal C. Javeri V/s. K.K.Sen 56 ITR 198 (SC.) 2. Shivakant Jha V/s. UOI (2002) 256 ITR 563 (Del.) 3. Pradip J.Mehta V/s. CIT (2008)300 ITR 231 (SC.)] 4. UCO Bank V/s. CIT 104 Taxman 547 (SC.) 31.5.2. Reliance was placed on the following decisions for the proposition that in the absence of ambiguity in the section there is no scope for resorting to interpretation:- (a) CIT vs T.V.Sundaram Iyyengar [1975] 101 ITR 764 (SC); (b) CIT vs Elphinstone Spg & Wvg Mills Co. Ltd. 40 ITR 142 (SC) & CIT vs Motors & General Stores Ltd. 66 ITR 692, 699-700 (SC) (c) CIT vs Ajax Products Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 741(SC) (d) Smt. Tarulata Shyam vs CIT [1971] 108 ITR 345 (SC) (e) Keshavji Ravji & Co. vs CIT [1990] 49 Taxman 87 (SC) (f) UOI vs Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 707 (SC) (g) CIT vs Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625 (SC) (h) CIT vs Shyam Finance Pvt. Ltd. 230 ITR 308 (SC). 31.6. Considering the arguments judicial precedent and the legal opinions of Mr. S.D.Kapilla, Adv. And two retired Chief Commissioner of Income Tax t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....succeeds on the first ground of appeal as the status of the appellant is that of a non resident and not resident as the determined by A.O. Accordi9ngly, the finding of the A.O. holding the appellant to be a resident and not a non resident of claimed is deleted. The status of the appellant be taken as Non Resident, as claimed, and the assessment order be modified/amended accordingly. 2.0. The second ground of appeal related to inclusion of the sum of Rs. 7,72,71,972/- comprising of Rs. 7,70,71,792/- being amounts remitted from abroad and a gift of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the maternal grand daughter Sesha Gupta out of his overseas bank account. 2.1. The appellant during the course of hearing filed an analysis of the source and application of foreign funds, since A.Y. 2002-03 to 2008-09 attaching therewith summary of the foreign bank account, to establish that the moneys remitted to India were not wholly out of foreign earnings but were also out of borrowings effected overseas. Complete copies of written submissions along with Paper Books as filed before me were also handed over to the A.O. to enable him to verify the Paper Book, and make his submissions in rebuttal to the argum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India and entered UAE as evidenced by 94(Vol.-1) entry stamp in passport and air ticket 5. 6. 08.09.1998 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Letter from RBI re change of status and 111(Vol.-1) directing assessee to inform bankers and companies in which shareholder 25.09.1998 Intimation to bankers regarding change in 108-110 (Vol.-1) status of bank accounts as non resident Salary certificates from West Mead Holdings 112-117(Vol.-1) Ltd. 03.03.1999 Copy of lease deed of Appt. No. 230, Golden 149-150(Vol.-1) Dubai in evidence Sands, residence/accommodation in Dubai Residence Visas valid upto 2013 of 26.07.1999 Return of AY 1999-00 in status of NR which became final stated that assessee left on 14.08.1998 Returns of AY 2000-01 to 2001-02 in status of NR filed which stated period of stay in each year and became final 292-205[Vol.2] 296[Vol.2] [Period of stay of each year on pgs 300,309 312,314,318,322] 301-306 [Vol 2] Returns for AY 2002-03 to 2005-06 in status 307-319 [Vol.2] of NR filed stating period of stay in each year and asstt. Stood completed on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UK to execute 93 (Volume-1) the aforesaid agreement at London. 28.07.1998 First UAE resident visa granted and affixed 94 (Vol.-1) in passport 10.08.1998 Letter to RBI seeking permission u/s 29 of 95(Vol.-1) FERA, informing them of intended departure under employment and to hold assets in India. 14.08.1998 Left India and entered UAE as evidenced by 94(Vol.-1) entry stamp in passport and air ticket 08.09.1998 Letter from RBI re change of status and 111(Vol.-1) directing assessee to inform bankers and companies in which shareholder 25.09.1998 Intimation to bankers regarding change in 108-110 (Vol.-1) status of bank accounts as non resident Salary certificates from West Mead Holdings 112-117(Vol.-1) Ltd. Document 7 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 03.03.1999 Copy of lease deed of Appt. No. 230, Golden 149-150(Vol.-1) Dubai in evidence Sands, residence/accommodation in Dubai Residence Visas valid upto 2013 of 26.07.1999 Return of AY 1999-00 in status of NR which became final stated that assessee left on 14.08.1998 21. Gr. No.3 22. 23. Returns of AY 2....