TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in I.T.A. No. 1050/2009 dated 16.02.2012 by holding as under: "Ld. Counsel for the respondent-assessee states that he matter may be remitted to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) for fresh consideration. The statement made by the counsel for the respondent-assessee is taken on record. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 14.11.2008 is set aside and quashed. The Tribunal will decide the question/appeal afresh without being influenced by the earlier order. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The statement made by the counsel for the respondent-assessee will not be construed as an admission made by them that they do not have a case on merits. The appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed such action of the A.O. before the fit appellate authority and filed written submissions in which, it was claimed that on 28.08.2000, a letter was filed before the A.O. giving certain information and for filing information relating to the queries raised by the A.O., further was requested to give time. It was also mentioned that on 01.09.2000, copy of the employment contract and certain other information relating to job responsibilities were also furnished but the A.O. refused to hear the mater saying that the order had already been passed. 7. As regards the claim u/s 10(5B), the assessee mentioned that he was working with Coca Cola, India, having arrived in this country on 11.01.1996, was a Non-resident in India during all the four year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment order that the contention of the A.O. is correct because several opportunities were given and even then, the assessee could not furnish the evidence to support his claim u/s 10(5B). In view of this factual position, the grounds relating to this aspect was rejected. 10. Ld. CIT(A) further examined the claim of the assessee in respect of claim u/s 10(5B) as made in written submissions filed before ld. CIT(A) and after summarizing the same in para 8A, 8B and 9 of the order, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the claim of the assessee as per para 10 & 11 of the said order, which is reproduced below: "10. After going through the facts and arguments on both sides I am of the opinion that the claim u/s 10(5B) can be granted if a person has requisite ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant has to fulfill all the conditions required by section 10(5B) to qualify as a technician and he has surely failed to qualify for the same on two important conditions- having worked as a technician in the past and having been in employment as a technician with the Indian Company. 11. In view of the above mentioned facts, the ground relating to claim u/s 10(5B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 is rejected." 11. Similarly, the challenge with regard to charging of interest u/s 234B of the I. T. Act, 1961 was also rejected as per para 12 of his order, which reads as under: "The last ground is in respect of charge of interest u/s 234BN of the I. T. Act, 1961. It has been argued that if no advance-tax is payable there can be no default in pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the A.O. to give details about the job responsibility, he was unable to do so. Since, no technical services have been rendered, so assessee was not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(5B) of the Act. Therefore, the action of the authorities below is fully justified which needs to be confirmed. It was urged for confirmation of the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). 14. Ld. A.R. in order to counter the submissions of the Ld. D.R., has relied upon the case of ACIT Vs Shri Andreas Beising (I.T.A. No. 3496/Del/01) in which authorities below treated the assessee as technician and allowed the claim u/s 10(5B). So, relying upon this decision, it was pleaded for allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of exemption as well as deletion of interest ....