SACHIN GOPALDAS TOTALE,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, JALGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2613/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 March 2022AY 2011-125 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with the AO, and restoring the 'Resident' status did not alter the returned income or tax liability. Therefore, the assessee had no valid grievance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return as 'Resident' but the Assessing Officer completed the assessment treating them as 'Non-Resident'. The assessee's application to rectify this discrepancy was rejected. The CIT(A) then restored the assessee's status to 'Resident' and granted DTAA benefits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in changing the assessee's residential status and in not adjudicating on the applicability of Section 154(8) when the AO had initially treated the assessee as 'Non-Resident'?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 90,Section 5(2),Section 154,Section 251(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kawdia
For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Hearing: 08.03.2022Pronounced: 15.03.2022

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Nashik [‘CIT(A)’ for short] dated 20.09.2017 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in finalising the appeal proceedings without disposing off the mistake apparent from record u/s 154 as pointed out by the appellant and rejected by the AO. 2) The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in exceeding his powers u/s 251(1)(c) of the Act while passing the appellate order. 3) In an appeal proceeding against the order u/s 154 passed by the AO, the CIT(A) erred in changing the status of the appellant as AO as ‘Non Resident’ and not disputed by the appellant in any appeal. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal raised by the appellant regarding applicability of 154(8) of the Act to the facts of the case. 5) The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head ‘salary’. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 21.03.2013 disclosing total income of Rs.75,66,070/- claiming the residential status of the appellant as “Resident”. In the return of income, the appellant offered global income including the income earned in United States of America (USA) ‘Agreement of Secondment Abroad’ entered into EMC Data Storage Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon (‘the Assessing Officer’) accepting the returned income but denying the claim of the appellant for tax credit/relief of Rs.2,89,924/- claimed u/s 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) read with Article 25 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and USA by holding that the appellant status is ‘Non-Resident’.

4. On receipt of the assessment order, the appellant filed an application u/s 154 of the Act on 25.06.2014 before the Assessing Officer stating that when the Assessing Officer had treated the appellant as ‘Non-Resident’. As natural corollary, the taxable income should be assessed as per section 5(2) of the Act i.e. assessing only the income earned in India. However, the said application came to be rejected vide order dated 10.07.2015.

5.

Being aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A) raising the similar contentions also contending that the Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the Miscellaneous Petition filed u/s 154 of the Act. The material facts are not in dispute. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the appellant is only ‘Resident’ in India as the appellant had gone to USA for ‘Secondment’ for a period of 8 months during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and he had not gone for the purpose of employment. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to give benefits of DTAA on credit for USA paid Rs.2,89,924/- as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. 6. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal.

More judgments on Section 90

All 1,075 judgments and leading authorities on Section 90 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →