TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), dated 16.03.2015. Brief facts qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs. NIL on 28.05.2012. The assessee's return of income was selected for scrutiny u/s. 143(2) and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making the addition of Rs. 36,96,150/- on account of salary received in India in view of the provisions of section 5(2)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee is a Marine Engineer and was engaged with M/s. OMI Crewing Services during the A.Y. : 2012-13. On perusal of 'Continuous Discharge Certificate' it was found by the AO that assessee was on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he action of the Ld. CIT(A) to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer to bring into tax an amount of Rs. 36,69,150/- by treating it be received in India is based on incorrect assumption of facts and wrong application of law. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the Assessing Officer not to follow the decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Utanka Roy v. DIT (Intl. Tax) Kolkata & Others in W.P. No. 369 of 2014 and instead treat as income of Rs. 36,69,150/- u/s. 5(2)(z) of the Income-tax Act is based on incorrect application of law and the addition is arbitrary and excessive. 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order of the Assessing Officer is arbitrary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot deducted any tax as per their provision or law. As per CDC already filed before AO, the assessee sign on 10.05.2011 and sing off on 11.11.2011 i.e. 185 days and as per passport, assessee was outside India together 187 days and his status was Non-Resident. That is, the entire income duly rendering services from salary received from outside India in US dollar being Non-Resident also not taxable in India u/s. 5 of the Act. However, the AO rejected the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 36,96,150/-. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that he was a non-resident and no income was tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f various High Courts/Tribunals and came on the conclusion that matter was covered against the assessee by the decisions of the Hon'ble IT AT, and therefore he confirmed the addition made by AO. 2.3 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted, before us, that although the Assessing Officer made the addition stating that in the case of assessee under consideration being non-resident therefore, any income from whatsoever sources derived is to be included in his total income as if it is received in India (Section 5(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act). Whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that all the decisions of Hon'ble IT AT are against the assessee. But the ld. Counsel pointed out before us that n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de India, into the NRE bank account of the seafarer in India. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid Circular is vague in as much as it does not specify as to whether the Circular covers either of the situations or both the situations contemplated above. Hence, we deem it fit to give the benefit of doubt to the assessee by holding that the Circular covers both the situations referred to above. The result of such interpretation of the Circular would be that the provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act is rendered redundant. Be that as it may, it is well settled that the Circulars issued by CBDT are binding on the revenue authorities. This position has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. In....