9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 641 - AT - Income TaxIncome from foreign country as salary income - number of days stay in India - according to the AO he could not take cognizance of the contentions made by the assessee unless a revised return is being filed - Held that - A perusal of the given details indicate that the assessee was non-resident during the year. He has earned salary income in a foreign country and it was not taxable in India. By an inadvertent mistake, he has included that amount in the return of income which sought to be rectified by filing submissions. To our mind, the ld.CIT(A) has rightly taken cognizance of this fact, and has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. After going through the order of the ld.CIT(A) we do not see any infirmity in his order on this issue, and accordingly upheld the same. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
Revenue's appeal against deletion of addition of ?53,01,888. Analysis: The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld.CIT(A) regarding the deletion of an addition of ?53,01,888. The assessee, a non-resident Indian, claimed relief under sections 90/91 of the Income Tax Act for income earned outside India. The ld.AO did not accept the explanation, stating the assessee should have filed a revised return. However, the ld.CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contentions based on evidence provided, including a passport, bank statement, and employer certificate. The assessee's salary income from a foreign country was not taxable in India. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the submissions made by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-resident during the year and had earned salary income in a foreign country, which was not taxable in India. The ld.CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of the assessee, considering the inadvertent mistake in including the foreign income in the return. The Tribunal upheld the order of the ld.CIT(A) as there was no infirmity in his decision. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld.CIT(A) to delete the addition of ?53,01,888 as the assessee, a non-resident Indian, had earned income outside India, which was not taxable in India. The Tribunal found no fault in the ld.CIT(A)'s judgment and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
|
