TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urse of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed from the bank extract furnished by the assessee that the assessee has received salary outside India (Korea) which has not been declared in the return of income and the assessee has also not claimed any relief U/s 90 of the Income Tax Act. The amount of such salary in Korean currency was 2,27,29,050/-. The above salary of Korea has been converted into Indian currency, keeping in view of 26AS wherein it was found statement that his employer has deducted TDS on entire income i.e. salary received in India as well as in Korea. The total TDS deducted was Rs. 7,68,829/-. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown income from salary of Rs. 12,48,198/- and claimed re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India for 247 days i.e. more than 182 days. Thus appellant had stayed in India for a period of 91 days during the year, however no details of stay in India during previous 4 years has been given by the appellant in accordance to the provisions of section 6 of IT Act. In view of above facts the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and the action of the AO in making the above said addition of Rs. 17,09,702/- is upheld, thus these grounds of appeal are dismissed." 4. Aggrieved with such order Assessing Officer, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when a citizen of India leaves the country for employment and stays outside India for 182 days or more he becomes a non-r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing a previous year and was outside India for the purposes of employment, then regardless of his being in India for 365 days or more during 4 preceding previous years, he cannot be treated as a resident of India. 7. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ADIT Vs. Rajiv Bali in ITA No.1813/Del/2012 order dated 28.06.2012 for the A. Y. 2006-07 he submitted that under identical circumstances the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. He accordingly submitted that since the assessee in the instant case was outside India for more than 182 day, therefore, he became a non-resident and not liable to tax on the salary income of Rs. 17,09,702/-. 8. The DR on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... RIL, and deputed to Iraq outside India was for more than threshold 182 days, salary income of assessee for the previous year could not be held to be taxable because he was not resident of India. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. Rajiv Bali (supra) under identical circumstances, following various decisions has held that remuneration received by the assessee in respect of the foreign employment is not taxable in India under provision of section 5 (2) (a) of the IT Act, 1961 and such income cannot be taxed in India when the assessee stayed outside India for more than 182 days. The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 4 onwards read as under :- "4. The only issue involved is against the deletion o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing year. It is clear that salary income could not have been brought to tax on accrual basis for the simple reason that it accrued outside India. The provisions of section 5(2)(a) are subject to section 15 which, inter alia, says that salary is chargeable to income-tax on due basis irrespective of the fact whether it has been received or not. So, salary income is not liable to be taxed in India on recent basis under section 15. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the salary received in India in this case was not chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Salaries' under section 15(a). As has also been pointed out above, this case does not fall either under clause (b) or clause (c) of section 15." ITAT, Delhi has also ....