TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AYs) 2015-16 to 2018-19 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-20 [hereinafter "CIT(A)"] dated 22.03.2025. 2. The facts in all these appeals of the Revenue are identical and issues are common hence, we proceed to pass a common order. For brevity, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No.1562/Chny/2025 for A.Y 2015-16 as lead case. ITA No.1562/Chny/2025 for AY 2015-16: 3. The assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for all these four assessment years in the status of a Non-Resident. A search operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee on 20.01.2021, pursuant to which the Assessing Officer (A.O) issued notices under section 153A of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t years. 6. The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR), relying upon Section 6 of the Act, contended that since the assessee was in India for a total period of 365 days or more during the four years preceding the relevant previous year and also for more than 60 days in the relevant financial year, he was a Resident in India. The Ld. DR further argued that Explanation 1(a) to section 6 was not applicable, as the assessee was not an employee of M/s. Jesus Calls International, USA ("JCI"), but was holding a key managerial position and had complete control over its operations. It was submitted that the assessee was an honorary member and the President of JCI, USA, and that his family members were managing its affairs and exercising ful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the relevant documentary evidences in his order and came to the conclusion that the Respondent was employed with JCI (USA) during all 4 years and was thus non-resident in India as per the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 6(1) of the Act." The Ld. AR therefore requested that the findings of Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of both parties, perused the relevant material available on record, and examined the detailed findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). The issue before us revolves around the determination of the residential status of the assessee under section 6(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the consequent taxability of income earned abroad during the relevant assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... years under appeal, wherein he has disclosed wages and salary income received from JCI (USA) and paid taxes thereon. (v) The L1 employment visa issued by the U.S. Government, categorically naming JCI (USA) as the sponsoring employer. 8.3. On a cumulative consideration of these materials, the finding of the CIT(A) that the assessee was employed abroad during the relevant years is well supported. Consequently, the benefit of Explanation 1(a) to section 6(1) of the Act, which provides that "an individual who is a citizen of India and who leaves India in any previous year for the purposes of employment outside India shall not be treated as resident unless he stays in India for 182 days or more during that year", squarely applies to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. 8.7 In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the assessee was correctly treated as a Non-Resident under section 6(1) read with Explanation 1(a) of the Act for all the four assessment years in question. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards deposits in foreign bank accounts and foreign credit card expenses, which relate to foreign-sourced income, have been rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. ITA Nos.1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 for A.Y 2016-17 to 2018-19: 9. We find that identical issues are involved in the Revenue's appeals for A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19. Therefore, our adjudication for A.Y. 2015-16 shall app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held the same. 10.1 The Ld. AR contended that these additions were unsustainable as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC). It was argued that the total gifts as per software amounted to Rs.67,91,914/-, whereas gifts offered in the returns aggregated to Rs.1,13,27,799/-, implying excess disclosure and hence there is no escapement of income. 11. We have considered the rival submission. The A.O has made the addition of gift of Rs. 3,31,350/- in A.Y 2016-17 and Rs.90,012/- in A.Y 2018-19 as the gift shown in return of income is less than gift recorded in the seized documents. So far as A.....