ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Non-residents as per Section 5(2) of the IT Act are not required to disclose or offer their income to tax in India

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 12.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2006-07.

Citation :
ITA No.706/M/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.706/M/2019
Assessment Year: 2006-07

DCIT – 4(2)(1),
Room No.1708,
17th Floor,
Air India Building,
Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021

vs

Mr. Ganpat Singhvi,
C/o Karnavat & Co.,
24 Kitab Mahal,
1st Floor,
192, Dr. D Naoroji Road,
Mumbai – 400 001
PAN: BHMPS6673K

Present for:
Assessee by : Shri A.K. Gosh, A.R.
Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Subramaniyan, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2021

O R D E R

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 12.11.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2006-07.

2. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and some additional evidences were also filed before ld CIT(A) which are placed at page nos. 257-335 of the paper book. The ld CIT(A) forwarded the additional evidences to the AO and directed to file a remand report . The AO submitted remand report to the Ld. CIT(A).

3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. The undisputed facts are that Respondent is an individual residing in Abu Dhabi, UAE since 1976. The Respondent is a Chartered Accountant, working with Al Nasser Holdings as Group Advisor & Director (formerly as Managing Director). During FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07), the respondent resided in India for a period of 45 days which does not exceed the maximum threshold limit specified in Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and accordingly, the respondent was non-resident for AY 2006-07.

4. Similarly, as regards the joint account fo the assessee with his brother in HSBC Geneva , the ld CIT(A) recorded a finding on the basis of evidences that money was transferred in the bank account out of the income earned in Abu Dhabi and savings made by the respondent assessee during his stay in Abu Dhabi, UAE as a non-resident Indian since 1976. Considering all these facts, we are inclined to uphold the order of ld CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.

5. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01.10.2021.

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement
 

 

Poojitha Raam
on 11 October 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 27
downloaded 10 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags