ITA NO 266 OF 2017 SS NAGA PEESAPATI HYDERABAD. PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.266/HYD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHRI SRINIVAS SATYA NAGA PEESAPATI, HYDERABAD PAN:BIZPP5808C VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : SHRI NILANJAN DEY, DR O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2010-11 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-10, HYDERABAD, DATED 29.01 .2016. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A N INDIVIDUAL, AND WAS ON DEPUTATION IN INDIA DURING T HE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AND DERIVED INCOME FROM SALARY, FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2010-11 ON 16.03.2012 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,60,730/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS ON DEPUTATION TO INDIA, HIS SALARY WAS CREDITED TO HIS A/C IN USA. HE THEREFORE, VERIFIED THE PASSPORT OF THE ASS ESSEE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STAYED IN INDIA FROM 07.06.2009 TO 31.03.2010 I.E. MORE THAN 180 DAYS. THEREFORE, H E TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS A RESIDENT OF INDIA AND THEREFORE, HELD THAT HIS ENTIRE INCOME IS TO BE TAXED IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVE R, CLAIMED THE DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.03.2019 ITA NO 266 OF 2017 SS NAGA PEESAPATI HYDERABAD. PAGE 2 OF 3 STATUS OF A RESIDENT BUT NOT AN ORDINARY RESIDENT SINCE HE WAS NON-RESIDENT FOR 9 OUT OF 10 YEARS. HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCRUED OUTSIDE INDIA AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. THE AO HOWEV ER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THE SALARY OF RS.26,85,688/- AND SINCE HE WA S WORKING IN INDIA, THE SAME HAS ACCRUED IN INDIA ONLY AND IT HA S TO BE TAXED IN INDIA ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, HE BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT (A) STATING THAT HE WAS A RESIDENT, BUT NOT ORDINARILY RESIDENT OF INDIA DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AND THAT HE WAS ON LEAVE IN INDIA W.E.F. 7.6.2009 TO 31.3.2010 AND ALSO THAT HIS SALARY WAS TAXED IN USA. THE CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY DETAILS AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE A SSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OBTAIN THE RELEVANT DETAILS DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS BUT HAS NOW BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN THE DOCUMENTS AND FILED THEM AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US. HE SOUGHT ADMISSION OF THE SAME AND PRAYED FOR REMANDING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR V ERIFICATION AND ADJUDICATION AFRESH. 5. THE LEARNED DR WAS ALSO HEARD. ITA NO 266 OF 2017 SS NAGA PEESAPATI HYDERABAD. PAGE 3 OF 3 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE FACTS, I FIND THAT TH E EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE ME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MA TTER. THEREFORE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDL ESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 27 TH MARCH, 2019. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYA'S ELEGANCE, 3-6- 643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500029 2 ITO WARD 8(3) SIGNATURE TOWERS, KONDAPUR, HYDERAB AD 3 CIT (A)-10 HYDERABAD 4 THE CIT (IT&TP) HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER