COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-! vs. SHRI SURESH NANDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/760/2016HC DelhiDLHC01237432201628 November 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that the question of the assessee's residency and liability to report earnings in India had already been concluded for previous assessment years. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed after an inordinate delay, and the explanation provided was unsatisfactory. The core issue was whether the assessee was a "Resident Indian" liable to file returns in India.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was a "Resident Indian" and thus obligated to file returns in India. Whether a substantial question of law arises when the issue has been decided in previous years.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~3 to 5 & 39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 760/2016, C.M. APPL.40369/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) ..... Appellant

versus

SHRI SURESH NANDA

..... Respondent

+ ITA 761/2016, C.M. APPL.40370-40371/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C)-I ..... Appellant

versus

SHRI SURESH NANDA

..... Respondent

+ ITA 762/2016, C.M. APPL.40372-40373/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I..... Appellant

versus

SHRI SURESH NANDA

..... Respondent

+ ITA 847/2016, C.M. APPL.44039-44040/2016

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I..... Appellant

versus

SHRI SURESH NANDA

..... Respondent Through: Sh. Sandeep Kapur and Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocates, for respondent in Item Nos. 3 to 5 and 39. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel and Sh. Vikrant. A. Maheshwari, Advocate, for appellant in Item Nos. 3 to 5 and 39.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

O R D E R %

28.11.2016

C.M. APPL.40369/2016 IN ITA 760/2016

C.M. APPL. 40371/2016 IN ITA 761/2016

C.M. APPL. 40373/2016 IN ITA 762/2016

C.M. APPL.44039-44040/2016 IN ITA 847/2016

The appeals have been refiled after an inordinate delay of 647

days (in ITA 760/2016, ITA 762/2016 & ITA 847/2016) and 686 days (in ITA 761/2016). The explanation too is unsatisfactory. Much less, it does not meet with the requirements of what constitutes “sufficient cause”. The applications for condonation of delay are, therefore, rejected.

ITA 760/2016 ITA 761/2016, C.M. APPL.40370/2016 ITA 762/2016, C.M. APPL.40372/2016 ITA 847/2016, C.M. APPL.44039/2016

The Court further notices that the question involved is whether the assessee could be called a “Resident Indian” to be obliged to file returns. The question has been concluded for another year AY 2007-08 where it was held that the assessee was not liable to report his earnings in India [in Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-I v. Shri Suresh Nanda (ITA Nos. 715/2014, 722/2014 & 723/2014, decided on 27.05.2015)]. We also notice that for another year, i.e. AY 2004-05, the same view was reiterated in Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-I v. Shri Suresh Nanda [ITA 29/2016, decided on 22.01.2016]. No question of law, therefore, arises. The appeals are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J NOVEMBER 28, 2016/ajk

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →