TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was sent on deputation to USA for official work. For Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee filed the return of income on 08.08.2013 declaring income of Rs. 35,464/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for this Assessment Year. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the total income as per Form 16 issued by the employer was Rs. 8,58,870/- as against Rs. 35,464/- declared by the assessee in the return of income. As per the AO, the assessee admitted that he had adopted the net income as per pay slips while computing the total income from salaries and agreed for the adoption of the amount of Rs. 8,58,870/- as total income in India. Therefore, the total income of the assessee in India was assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Saptarishi Ghosh in ITA No.915/Kol/2010 dated 30.09.2011. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2017. While doing so, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee himself, during assessment proceedings, had asked the AO to consider the global income and grant credit for taxes paid in the USA and therefore there is no infirmity in the order of the AO. It is seen that the CIT(A) neither adjudicated / addressed the issue of whether the deputation income received by the assessee while on deputation in USA is in the nature of living allowance exempt under section 10(14) of the Act nor did the CIT(A) consider the judicial decision of ITAT, Kolkata Bench cited by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in law and on facts in assessing the appellant in the status of Resident even though the appellant left India for the purposes of employment outside India and has stayed for 77 days only in India during financial year 2012-13. 2. That the learned lower authorities ought to have held that the appellant is a non-resident. 3. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in assessing the salary income of 23,33,552/- received for the employment performed in United States of America even lough the appellant is a Non-Resident. 4.2.2 After hearing the rival contentions in the matter in respect of the admission of additional grounds of appeal, sought to be filed by the assessee (supra), I am of the view that they ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessed in India at all. To buttress his contentions in the additional grounds, the assessee has filed a copy of the Deputation Agreement entered into by him with his employer as additional evidence (copy placed at pages 11 to 25 of Paper Book). 4.4.2 The issue that the assessee is a non-resident for tax purposes due to his stay in India for only 77 days has not been raised either before the AO on the CIT(A). However, the taxability of the income depends critically on the residential status of the assessee. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to admit the additional grounds raised and the additional evidence submitted. 4.5 The learned AR of the assessee submitted that the income adopted by the AO was based on the details furnishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re than 365 days in the preceding four previous years. 4.7.1 I have considered the rival contentions, examined the details / documents produced and on or record; including the judicial pronouncements cited. On an appraisal of the record, it emerges that the assessee had taken conflicting stands before the authorities below. The assessee did not declare / disclose the correct income from salaries in India, while filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14. He subsequently submitted that he was not aware that the income earned in USA should also be declared in the return of income filed in India. Before the AO, the assessee agreed for assessment of his global income, provided he is given credit for the taxes paid in USA. Subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned earlier, this issue is crucial to decide the residential status of the assessee, which is critical for assessment of the income received by the assessee in USA in the year under consideration. In view of the factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter to file of the AO to examine / verify the facts of the matter and decide the residential status of the assessee in the previous relevant to Assessment Year 2013-14 for assessment of the correct income of the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to add, the AO shall afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details / submissions required, which shall be du....