9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 1428, 1429 and 1430/Del/2012. 2. The main issue that is sought to be raised in these appeals is with regard to the residential status of the respondent/assessee. According to the learned counsel for the revenue/appellant, the respondent was a resident of India whereas the Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondent/assessee was not residing in India. Apart from the question of residence, certain other issues were examined by the Tribunal. They were as under:- (i) The addition of Rs. 65,85,000/- under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 2002-03; (ii) The addition based on the documents which were allegedly found in the possession of 3rd parties. This was in respect of the assessment years 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ife Smt Renu Nanda, for the assessment year 2003-04, has been deleted by the Tribunal. This is challenged by the revenue in the appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04. However, we find that the same has been concluded by the Tribunal purely on an appreciation of facts. The Tribunal has noted that the respondent/assessee and his wife Smt Renu Nanda had separated by way of a deed of settlement dated 04.04.1998 and the payments were based thereon. The Tribunal also noted that the addition has not been based on any evidence or incriminating material indicating that any payment had been made outside the books. The Tribunal observed that the sole basis for the assumption on the part of the assessing officer was that there was some unwri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be resident in India in any previous year, if he- (a) is in India in that year for a period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty-two days or more; or (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) Having within the four years preceding that year been in India for a period or periods amounting in all to three hundred and sixty five days or more, is in India for a period or periods amounting in all to sixty days or more in that year. Explanation- In the case of an individual,- (a) Being a citizen of India, who leaves India in any previous year (as a member of the crew of an Indian ship as defined in clause (18) of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958), or)for the purposes of employment outside India, the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. It is apparent that section 6(1)(a) makes it clear that an individual would be a resident of India in any previous year if he was in India in that year for a period or periods amounting in all to 182 days or more. The respondent/assessee, clearly, is not such an individual because in none of the years in question did he stay in India for 182 days or more. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the respondent/assessee would fall within section 6(1)(c) read with explanation (b). However, we fail to see as to how that provision would come to aid of the appellant. Section 6(1)(c) applies to citizens of India as well as to persons of Indian origin. It also applies to foreigners. Insofar as foreigners are concerned se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
