9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) while giving the above direction failed to appreciate (i) that clause (a) of the Explanation to section 6(1) of the Act is applicable only to the persons leaving India for the purpose of employment outside India, and (ii) that there is neither anything on the record to show that the assessee had an employment outside India during the period he was away, nor did he adduce any evidence to this effect even at the appellate stage." 3. The assessee in his return of income claimed the status of non-resident and appended a note to the effect that 'he left India on 14-4-1982 for the purpose of employment outside India. He was out of India during the previous year for 218 days'. He further n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee brought to our notice the clarification at serial 7.3 of page 737 claimed to have been issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and published in the publication known as 'Law of Income-tax'. With the help of this clarification the learned counsel for the assessee discussed the implications of the aforesaid provisions of section 6 and contended that since the assessee had left India for the purposes of employment outside India for a total period 218 days during the relevant previous year, he was not a 'resident' within the meaning of section 6 and, therefore, ought to have been assessed in the status of a 'non-resident'. After careful consideration of the relevant provisions of the I.T. Act and the case-law on the subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (a) so as to convert a resident into a non-resident. In this connection, a profitable reference may also be made to the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Abbott Laboratories (P.) Ltd. [1989] 31 ITD 183. In that case, the phrase 'any period of employment outside India' had come up for consideration before the Special Bench and it was decided that it is only a permanent or temporary posting outside India which would fall in the purview of such phrase and any tour or stay abroad in connection with one's employment in India could not be treated as equivalent of employment outside India. In the case in hand, we find that the assessee had not 'left' India 'for the purposes of his employment outside India' an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
