Sh. Shiv Puri, New Delhi V. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2455/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74330 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH CHANDRACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; ASHWANI TANEJA S
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2455/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI SHIV PURI, VS. JCIT, RANGE 48, A 134, NITI BAGH, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 049. (PAN : AKNPP3600Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA & SHRI ASHWANI TANE JA, ADVOCATES AND SHRI SOMIL AGARWAL, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA,CIT DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-XXII, NEW DELHI DATED 15.03.2011 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS SETTLED IN USA FROM JULY 1994 TO AUGUST 2004 AND WAS ALSO HOLDING GREEN CARD. THE ASSESSEE RETURNED TO INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN IN INDIA FOR 331 DAYS IN THE IMMEDIATE SEVEN PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEARS. THE ASS ESSEE WAS NON-RESIDENT IN 9 OUT OF 10 PRECEDING YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HE ASSESSEE VISITED INTO ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 2 INDIA FOR 331 DAYS DURING 01.04.1998 TO 07.09.2004. THE DETAILS OF THE STAY IN INDIA FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96 ARE AS UNDER :- STAY IN INDIA PREVIOUS YEAR FROM TO NO. OF DAYS IN INDIA 1995-96 01.08.1995 02.09.1995 33 23.12.1995 12.01.1996 21 07.03.1996 17.03.1996 11 1996-97 27.06.1996 31.08.1996 66 27.12.1996 17.01.1997 22 1997-98 17.08.1997 01.09.1997 16 21.11.1997 30.11.1997 10 19.12.1997 10.01.1998 23 1998-99 02.06.1998 04.07.1998 33 20.12.1998 04.01.1999 16 1999-00 - - 2000-01 20.12.2000 05.01.2001 17 2001-02 23.11.2001 09.12.2001 17 2002-03 30.06.2002 07.07.2002 8 2003-04 25.12.2003 07.01.2004 14 2004-05 17.06.2004 21.06.2004 5 26.06.2004 26.06.2004 1 02.07.2004 04.07.2004 3 21.08.2004 07.11.2004 79 15.11.2004 31.03.2005 138 TOTAL 533 DURING HIS STAY IN INDIA, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARN ED ANY INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE IN INDIA NOR FROM ANY SERVICES RENDERED FROM WHICH HE COULD DRIVE ANY ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 3 INCOME. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.07.20 06 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.47,54,087/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THUS, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS TAX RESIDENT OF IND IA. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED US $ 14,67,000 DURING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2005-06 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS A FEE RECEIVED FROM SERVICE S RENDERED IN SETTING UP VOYAGER FUND AND ARRANGING INVESTORS ETC. THE ASSE SSING OFFICERS TOOK THE AMOUNT AS US $ 1800000 FROM VOYAGER FUND MAURITIUS LTD. AND HELD THAT THIS WAS DEEMED INCOME TO ACCRUE AND ARISE IN INDIA AS PER SECTION 9(1)(VII)(C) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 8.10 CRORES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY TAKI NG THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF RS.8 ,10,00,000/- HAS ARISEN AND ACCRUED FROM SERVICES RENDERED IN IN DIA AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,10 ,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT & THAT TOO BY NOT OBSERV ING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND BY RECORDING INCO RRECT FACTS, MORE SO WHEN THE RECEIPT OF US $ 300000 FROM M/S GL EN HILL WAS NOT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN RECORDING THE FINDING THAT NO E VIDENCE OF HAVING RENDERED THE SERVICES ABROAD WERE PRODUCED B Y THE ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 4 APPELLANT AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME ACCRUED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND TOO BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE S. 4. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN ANY CASE, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN BRINGING TO TAX THE RECEIPT OF RS.8,10,00,000/- AS INCOME CHARG EABLE TO TAX IN INDIA, IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN ANY CASE, IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.8,1 0,00,000/- COULD NOT BE MADE & WAS NOT FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY S USTAINABLE. 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN N OT REVERSING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, MODI FY, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 4. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EFFECTIVE DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS REGARDI NG THE TAXABILITY OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.8.10 CRORES WHETHER IT IS CHARGEABLE T O TAX IN INDIA OR NOT. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADD ITION OF RS.8.10 CRORES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME DEEMED TO A CCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA AS PER SECTION 9(1)(VII)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 ON THE GROUND THAT IT REPRESENTED FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING INCOME FOR WHATEVER SOURCE IN INDIA, THEREFORE, IT ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 5 DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. IT WAS ALSO HE LD THAT INCOME WAS DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED IN INDIA ALSO, THEREFORE, THE INCOME WAS HELD TO BE TAXABLE IN INDIA. THE CIT (A) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY ASSESSEE OUTSIDE INDIA AND IN ANY CASE, THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN INDIA AND THE SAME WAS CHARGEABLE TO TA X IN INDIA. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WHEN THE INCOME WAS EARNED THE ASSESSEE WAS A RESIDENT BUT NOT ORDINARY RESIDENT A ND WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE ORDINARY RESIDENT THEN THE INCOME EARNED AND RE CEIVED OUT SIDE INDIA IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA IN TERMS OF SECTION 9(1) (VII)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS A NOT ORDINARY RESIDENT AND THE SERVICES FOR WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED WAS RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA. HE ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEI VED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION OUTSIDE INDIA IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND WHICH HAS BEE N LATER ON REMITTED TO INDIA, THEREFORE, IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SA ID THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN INDIA. HE FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE AMO UNT WAS RECEIVED FOR SERVICES RENDERED ABROAD AND WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. IT WAS FOR MOBILIZING FUND FOR SETTING UP AN INVESTMEN T FUND IN MAURITIUS AND THESE SERVICES WERE RENDERED PRIOR TO JUNE 2004 ONL Y, WHEN THE MUTUAL FUND WAS SET UP IN MAURITIUS FOR THE SAME AMOUNT WAS REC EIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH IS TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.8.10 CRORES REPRESENTED US $ 1800000. THE AMOUNT OF US $ 300000 WAS RECEIVED ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 6 FROM GLENHILL CAPITAL BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FI NANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2005. FURTHER, AN AMOUNT OF US $ 33000 WAS N EVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED US $ 1467000 AND NOT US $ 1800000. DETAILS ARE PLACED AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH SHOWS THE DATE-WISE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT. HE RELIED O N THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND SYNOPSIS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. H E ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) DDIT VS. CREDIT LYONNAIS 26 ITR (TRIB) 51; A ND (II) DDIT VS. ABU DABHI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. 60 SOT 71. FINALLY, HE PLEADED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CAN NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN INDIA IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SERVICE S RENDERED OUTSIDE OF INDIA. FURTHER, THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN I NDIA ONLY AS IT WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEE ACCOUNT JUST BEFORE TRANSFER TO INDIAN ACCOUNT. HE FINALLY PLEADED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RIGHTLY TAXED I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DESERVE TO B E AFFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO GONE THROU GH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE SYN OPSIS FILED BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS REL IED UPON BEFORE US AND THE CONTENTIONS CANVASSED BEFORE US. THE MAIN ISSUE IN VOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 7 WHETHER THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TAXA BLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN INDIA. AS PER SECTION 5(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE TOTAL INCOME OF A RESIDEN T INCLUDES ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE WHICH IS RECEIVED OR DEEMED TO BE R ECEIVED IN INDIA OR ACCRUES OR ARISES OR DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE TO H IM IN INDIA OR ACCRUES OR ARISES TO HIM OUTSIDE IN INDIA. HOWEVER, THERE IS A PROVISO TO THIS SECTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN CASE OF A PERSON NOT ORDINAR ILY RESIDENT IN INDIA WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 6 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE INCOME WHICH ACCRUES OR ARISES TO HIM OUTSIDE INDIA SHALL NOT BE SO INCLUDED UNLESS IT IS DERIVED FROM A BUSINESS CONTROLLED IN OR A PROFESSION SET UP IN INDIA. A PERSON IS SAID TO BE NOT ORDINARILY RESID ENT IN INDIA IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IF SUCH PERSON IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN A NON-RESIDENT IN INDIA IN NINE OUT OF TEN PREVIOUS YEARS PRECEDING THAT YEAR OR HAS DURING THE SEVEN PREVIOUS YEARS PRECEDING THAT YEAR BEEN IN INDIA FO R A PERIOD OF, OR PERIODS AMOUNTING IN ALL TO, SEVEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE DAYS OR LESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A WORKING OF DAYS FOR WHICH HE HAS STAYED IN INDIA FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR 1995-96 TO 2004-05 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PARAGRAPH 2 AT PAGE 2 OF THIS ORDER. IT IS CLEAR F ROM THE CHART THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN INDIA FOR 331 DAYS FOR SEVEN PRECEDING YEARS WHICH IS LESS THAN 729 DAYS AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 6 (6) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR A STATUS OF NOT ORDINARILY RESIDENT. THUS, IT IS AN ESTABLI SHED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 8 STATUS WAS OF A NOT ORDINARILY RESIDENT (NOR) IN INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THIS FACT HAS BEEN ALSO RECORDED BY CIT (A ). ONCE THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTABLISHED AS NOT ORDINARILY RESIDENT (NOR), THEN THE NEXT ISSUE COME FOR DECISION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION REPRESENTED THE INCOME WHICH ACCRUED OR AROSE TO HIM IN INDIA OR IT IS DER IVED FROM BUSINESS CONTROLLED IN OR PROFESSION SET UP IN INDIA. FROM THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RENDERED S ERVICES OUTSIDE IN INDIA IN THE FORM OF SETTING UP AN INVESTMENT FUND IN MAURIT IUS AND MOBILIZATION SEED INVOICES FOR THE FUND. THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ENUMERATED THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE HE WAS SETTLED IN USA FOR SETTING UP VOYAGER FUND BY ARRANGING SEED INVESTORS AND SETTING UP THE ENTITY FOR MANAGING OF THE SAID FUND. THE SETTING UP OF THE VOYAGER FUND AND INVESTORS ENTITY HAS BEE N COMPLETED BY 07.06.2004. THUS, THE SERVICES RENDERED FOR THE AMO UNT RECEIVED WERE OUTSIDE IN INDIA PRIOR TO 07.06.2004 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS V ISITED INDIA ONLY FOR HOLIDAYS FOR VISITING PARENTS AND RELATIVES IN INDI A. THE FACTS REGARDING THE SERVICES PROVIDED HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY VOYAGER INV ESTORS FUND, MAURITIUS AND GLENHILL CAPITAL WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 13 14 AND 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK RESPECTIVELY. PAGE 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A LETTER FROM CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT USA WHICH CONFIRMS THAT THE NATURE OF SE RVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE INDIA AND THE REMUNERATION RECEIVE D FOR THE SAME BY THE ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 9 ASSESSEE. VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT (A) WHICH ARE PLACED AT VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK LIKE 10, 15 TO 17, 19 TO 28, 40 41 AND 56 TO 62 WHICH EXPLAINS THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT SIDE INDIA. EXPLAINING SOME DOUBT REGARDING THE SERVICES, THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE EVIDENCES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ONLY DOUBT HA S BEEN RAISED THAT NO EVIDENCE FOR SERVICES RENDERED ABROAD. HOWEVER, SU CH EVIDENCES OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE WITHOUT ANY COGENT BASIS OR MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE JUST BASED ON THE CONJECTURE S. THE EVIDENCES PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THE NATURE AND FACT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABROAD FOR SETTING UP OF MAURITIUS INVESTM ENT MUTUAL FUND AND PROVIDING SERVICES TO FIND OUT SEED INVESTORS ABROA D. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE RENDERED SERVICES IN RELA TION TO SETTING UP OF FUND IN MAURITIUS AND LOOKED TO FIND SEED INVESTORS ABROAD. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL MATRIX, INCOME IN RESPECT OF SERVICES WHICH WERE RE NDERED OUTSIDE INDIA, ACCRUE OR ARISE TO ASSESSEE OUTSIDE INDIA AND IT WA S NOT DERIVED FROM BUSINESS CONTROLLED IN OR PROFESSION SETTING UP IN INDIA. T HEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS COVERED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTIO N 5(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE INCOME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX I N INDIA. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED OUTSIDE INDIA AND IT HAS BEEN TR ANSFERRED TO INDIA ONLY ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 10 AFTER RECEIVING THE SAME FIRST OUTSIDE INDIA. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IT WAS TRANSFERRED IN A SHORT PERIOD TO BANK A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA WOULD NOT CHANGE THE BASIC CHARACTER OF THE R ECEIPTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HELD OUTSIDE INDIA. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KESHAV MILLS VS. CIT - 23 ITR 230 (SC) , THE WORD RECEIVED SHOWS THAT THE POINT OF FIRST RECEIPT HAS TO BE SEE N. HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.P. KALYANAKRISHNAN 195 ITR 534 (MAD.) HAS HELD THAT WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED U/S 5(1)(A) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN INDIA AFTER HAVING RECEIVED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WAS NOT ASSESSABLE IN INDIA. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED IN VARIOUS TRANCHES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ABROAD. THEREFORE, IT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN INDIA. THUS, THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED OUTSIDE INDIA IS REMITTED TO INDIA ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATES. THEREFO RE, WE HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE INDIA. THE LD . AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF DDIT VS. CREDIT LYONNAIS 26 ITR (TRI B.) 51 AND DDIT VS. ABU DABI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. 60 SOT 71 WHEREIN IT WA S HELD THAT THE NOMENCLATURE FEE IS NOT DECISIVE AND IT IS THE REAL ESSENCE AND CHARACTER OF A TRANSACTION WHICH NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO. AS WE H AVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDI A, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF US $ 3 LACS RECEIVED FROM GLENHILL ITA NO.2455/DEL./2013 11 CAPITAL IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 31.03.2005 AND THE AM OUNT OF US $ 33,000 WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ALL AND ONLY TH E AMOUNT OF US $ 14,67,000 WAS RECEIVED AND NOT US $ 18 LACS DURING THE RELEVA NT PERIOD. FURTHER IT BECOMES ALSO ACADEMIC TO DECIDE WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES OR NOT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 14 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) -XXII, NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.