TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd Vs. ITO'(2003) 259 ITR 19'(SC). Thus, the same needs to be quashed. 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by not following the order of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Delhi) for quashing the assessment proceedings as time barred. Therefore, the same should be quashed. 4. The assessment order is bad in law and on facts as it has been framed a) without proper enquiry as per objections raised during the assessment proceedings to bring on record the hidden facts, and b) without confronting the manner and source of receipt of the alleged information and material gathered at the back of the appellant. Thus, the same needs to be quashed. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the residential status of the appellant, being an American citizen, as a Resident but Ordinarily Resident (R&OR) but he was not in India during the relevant financial year for a period exceeding 60 days. Thus, he should be assessed as a Non Resident as per section 6 of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee is an 'NRI' and a citizen of USA, then the addition which has been made by the Assessing Officer could not be held to be taxable in India in view of the section 6 of the Income Tax Act as the threshold period for taxing non-resident has not been fulfilled. Here, in this case the addition has been made on account of deposits appearing in LGT Bank, Liechtestein for sums aggregating to Rs. 8,77,23,967/- and sum of Rs. 3,42,020/- which was deposited in the bank account in ICICI Bank in India on 30.4.2001 when the assessee had visited India. Whence the assessee is not liable to be taxed in India in terms of section 6 being a non-resident Indian, then no such amount can be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer clearly points out that the assessee was not resident in India during the relevant previous year, therefore, there is no question of making any addition in the hands of the assessee. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) and Assessing Officer. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant findings given in the impugned order as well as materials ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... December 1974 and has been holding American citizenship since 14.09.1999. It has been stated that in the year under consideration the appellant was in India for 27 days and in Assessment Year 2001-02 for 43 days and, Assessment Year 2000-01 for 29 days. A photocopy of the passport has been enclosed in the paper book. However, neither in the assessment proceedings and nor in the appellate proceedings, the original passport was produced despite specific requirements of the Assessing Officer. It is also stated that, in this case, even the appellant himself has not been produced for deposition. The photocopy of the passport as filed in the paper book do not in any manner support the claim of the appellant that his period of stay in India was 27 days in the instant year. In fact, a bare look at the photocopy placed would show that it is impossible to verify the claim in absence of original passport. Hence, it has to be held that, since all the documents pertaining to assessee's presence in India relevant to this period are available with him only, the non-production of the best evidence in the shape of original passport indicates that he is deliberately not producing them as the same w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011 3 10 68 2002-03 Delhi 30.04.2001 15.05.2001 16 70 70 2002-03 Delhi 27.07.2001 01,08.2001 6 11 71 2002-03 Delhi 08.11.2001 13.11.2001 6 79 79 31 On the basis of above table the stay in India by above said assessee comes at 31 days only. Since this office has not received any such direction of order sheet in original from ITAT. I am submitting this report in compliance to order sheet dated 06.06.2017 as provided by the assessee in original(copy enclosed). Yours faithfully, (Janaraan Das) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -31, New Delhi" 6. From the aforesaid report it is evidently clear that the assessee's presence in India was only for 31 days in the relevant previous year. Whence, the assessee who is an U.S.A. citizen since 14.9.1999; and is living in USA since 1974; and his presence in India during the relevant previous year is less than 182 days, then in terms of section 6, the assessee cannot be held to be resident in India. The ....