COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. N. SUNDARRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Tax Case appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, in I.T.A.Nos.1379/Mds/2003 to 1382/Mds/2003 respectively, raising the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) The above appeals are by the Revenue in respect of the assessment years 1994-95 to 1997-98. The assessee was employed with UNICEF and he had been residing outside India since 14.02.1977. He returned to India on 06.02.1992 on his superannuation, barring certain intervening visits. Thereafter, again he had gone out of India, on UNICEF duty, on 05.04.1992 and returned on 07.05.1992. From that date onwards, he has been residing in India permanently.

(3.) During his employment in UNICEF outside India, he had earned considerable sums of money by way of salary and had remitted the same in India in foreign exchange. The investments had been made mainly in bank deposits. The core question that arose before the Assessing Officer was, whether the assessee could be considered as a Resident or Non-Resident Indian and consequently, he would have the tax benefit under section 115E or under section 115H of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed return of income claiming tax benefit under Section 115 E /115 H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The same was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Later, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the ground that there is escapement of income tax. Therefore, on reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act, the assessing officer denied the exemption. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that reopening is valid and accordingly, denied the benefit of tax payment at 20%. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment and considered the case on merits and allowed the case of the assessee. Aggrieved by that order, the Revenue has filed the present Tax Case Appeals raising the above questions of law.