TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question as also in the preceding 4 years. No substantial question of law arises insofar as this aspect of the matter is concerned - in favour of assessee. Unaccounted investments - additions made on the basis of documents allegedly found in the possession of 3rd parties - Held that:- Tribunal has rightly remanded this aspect of the matter in view of the fact that the respondent/assessee had not been granted an opportunity of cross examining the persons from whom the said documents had been allegedly recovered. The matter has been remanded to the assessing officer to examine this issue after giving an opportunity of cross-examination to the respondent/assessee. Payment made to the assessee’s estranged wife - addition deleted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. All these appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Tribunal on 24.07.2012 in ITA Nos. 1428, 1429 and 1430/Del/2012. 2. The main issue that is sought to be raised in these appeals is with regard to the residential status of the respondent/assessee. According to the learned counsel for the revenue/appellant, the respondent was a resident of India whereas the Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondent/assessee was not residing in India. Apart from the question of residence, certain other issues were examined by the Tribunal. They were as under:- (i) The addition of Rs. 65,85,000/- under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the assessment year 2002-03; (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue and is not challenging the Tribunal s order insofar as this remand is concerned. 5. The addition with regard to the payment made to estranged wife Smt Renu Nanda, for the assessment year 2003-04, has been deleted by the Tribunal. This is challenged by the revenue in the appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04. However, we find that the same has been concluded by the Tribunal purely on an appreciation of facts. The Tribunal has noted that the respondent/assessee and his wife Smt Renu Nanda had separated by way of a deed of settlement dated 04.04.1998 and the payments were based thereon. The Tribunal also noted that the addition has not been based on any evidence or incriminating material indicating that any payment had been m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent/assessee. Section 6 of the said Act, so far as it is relevant, reads as under:- 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 (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) Having within the four years preceding that year been in India for a period or periods amounting in all to three hundred and sixty five days or more, is in India for a period or periods amounting in all to sixty days or more in that year. Explanation- In the case of an individual,- (a) Being a citizen of India, who leaves India in any previous year (as a member of the crew of an India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er we take the computation of the respondent/assessee or of the assessing officer, it is evident that the respondent/assessee has spent less than 182 days in each of the three years in question, that is, assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. 10. We shall now examine the provisions of section 6. It is apparent that section 6(1)(a) makes it clear that an individual would be a resident of India in any previous year if he was in India in that year for a period or periods amounting in all to 182 days or more. The respondent/assessee, clearly, is not such an individual because in none of the years in question did he stay in India for 182 days or more. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue that the respondent/asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on a plain reading of the provisions of section 6. All that has to be seen is the number of days that the respondent/assessee has spent in India in the year in question as also in the preceding 4 years. No substantial question of law arises insofar as this aspect of the matter is concerned. 13. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has correctly decided that the respondent/assessee was not a resident in India in the years in question, it is axiomatic that the addition of Rs. 10,51,20,000/- under section 68 would have to be deleted because it was a transfer from the respondent/assessee s foreign account to the domestic account. 14. In view of the foregoing we do not find any substantial question of law which arises for our consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
