9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not ordinarily resident" (hereinafter called 'RNOR'). 3. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is that the assessee received interest on term fixed deposit from bank which was claimed as exempt under section 10(15)(iv)(fa). The reason for exemption was stated to be the assessee's residential status as RNOR. The interest income accrued on term deposits in dollars deposited in the bank, which investment was at $52,250. On being called upon to prove the status as claimed, the assessee furnished a chart showing his stay in India in the preceding years as under:- "Stay in India Assessment year 1991-92 29 days (28-2-1993 to 29-3-1991) Assessment year 1992-93 15 days (9-12-1991 to 11-12-1991 and 19-3-1992 to 31-3-1992) Assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the status of ROR and charging to tax the interest income. 6. It is pertinent to note that the determination of correct residential status of an assessee is of paramount importance because the scope of total income as per section 5 depends on it. A person who is a resident is liable to tax in respect of his world income received or deemed to be received, accruing or arising or deemed to be accrued or arose to him in India and also outside India. On the contrary a non-resident is liable only in respect of income received or deemed to be received, accruing or arising or deemed to accrue or arise in India only. It implies that the income derived by such non-residents from any source outside India is immune from taxation under the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Act, 2003, with effect from 1-4-2004 which is as under:- "(6) A person is said to be "not ordinarily resident" in India in any previous year if such person is- (a) an individual who has not been resident in India in nine out of the ten previous years preceding that year, or has not during the seven previous years preceding that year been in India for a period of, or periods amounting in all to, seven hundred and thirty days or more." It is equally important to consider section 6(1) which runs as follows:- "6. For the purposes of this Act,- (1) An individual is 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent in that year and thus should fulfil either of the conditions of section 6(6). That is, he should meet either of the conditions of section 6(1), say, be in India for 182 days or more in the previous year and thereafter either of the conditions enshrined in section 6(6) be fulfilled, say, he should not be the resident in India in 9 out of 10 previous years preceding that year. 9. Adverting to the facts of the case as borne out from the assessment order we note that the assessee was residing in India from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-2001 and during that period he was out of India only for 6 days, i.e. from 8th June, 1997 to 14 June, 1997. The position which, therefore, emerges is that in the previous year (i.e. from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2001) he was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC) in which it was held that "while interpreting a statute legislative intention must be found in the words used by the Legislature". Similar view has been reiterated in the case of CAIT v. Plantation Corpn. of Kerala Ltd. [2001] 247 ITR 155 (SC) providing that "So long as there is no ambiguity in the statutory language, resort to any interpretative process to unfold the legislative intent becomes impermissible". 12. Coming back to the language of section 6(6)(a) we find that the word 'or' has been used between the lines "who has not been resident in India in nine out of ten previous years preceding that year" and "has not during the seven years preceding that year be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r day in India. On the basis of the said approval the petitioner came to India for rendering the service to BHEL on deputation basis. The petitioner in that case by way of revision application under section 264 claimed that the salary was not received in India and hence, he was not liable to pay any tax in India. When the controversy reached the High Court, it held in para 6 as under:- "Considering the aforesaid provisions of law, I find that a person is "not ordinarily resident" in India if in nine out of the ten preceding years he had stayed outside India. Admittedly, it is nobody's case that the petitioner had stayed in India during the preceding nine years. In that view of the matter, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner is " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
