Ashok Kumar Pandey Versus ACIT, Kautaliya Bhavan

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Ashok Kumar Pandey, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 with a total income of ₹9,570. His return was scrutinized, and he claimed to be a resident of both India and the United States of America. The residential status of the assessee was required to be determined under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and the USA. The assessee claimed his center of vital interest was in the USA, while the Assessing Officer determined his center of vital interest to be in India. The assessee appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the learned CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Center erred in confirming the order of ACIT, Circle 25(2) dated 09.03.2016 without giving proper opportunity of being heard and to that extent the order u/s 250 is devoid of natural justice and bad in law.
• 2. Whether the learned CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Center erred in confirming the order of ACIT, Circle 25(2) dated 09.03.2016 without considering the detailed submission and supporting documents submitted on 05.04.2023 and the order u/s 250 is bad in law and devoid of natural justice.
• 3. Whether the learned CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Center erred in confirming the order of ACIT, Circle 25(2) dated 09.03.2016 and failed to appreciate that the assessee is a resident of the USA in terms of the treaty provisions of India-USA DTAA treaty and therefore any income earned outside of India is not taxable and the said order requires to be set aside.
• 4. Whether the learned CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Center erred in confirming the order of ACIT, Circle 25(2) dated 09.03.2016 without appreciating the correct factual position and that the breaker rule for ascertaining the residential status of the assessee is applicable and vital facts are overlooked and thus there is error in applying the tie breaker rule for ascertainment of the residential status of the assessee and the order passed w/s 250 is erroneous and requires to be set aside.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2021-22Partly Allowed

• Visteon Corporation vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Chennai bench

• Kavish Arora vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• ITA No.4886/Del/2024 with C.O. No.93/Del/2025

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Bain & Company, Inc. vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2022-23Partly Allowed

• Ms. Barkha Dutt Vs. ACIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed