S.C : The High Court has given a specific finding that the respondent-assessee had not stayed in India during the preceding nine years and he was not ordinary resident in India, and, therefore, he would be governed by the proviso to s. 5(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961

Supreme Court Of India

CIT & ANR. vs. Morgenstern Werner

Sections 5(1)(c), 10(14)

Asst. Year 1990-91, 1991-92

M.B. Shah, P. Venkatarama Reddi & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1152 of 1999

24th October, 2002

Counsel Appeared

Rajiv Tyagi & Ms. Sushma Suri, for the Appellants : S. Rajappa, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

BY THE COURT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The High Court has given a specific finding that the respondent-assessee had not stayed in India during the preceding nine years and he was not ordinary resident in India, and, therefore, he would be governed by the proviso to s. 5(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Admittedly, the assessee was a technician working with Kraft Work Union (Siemens) and was drawing his salary in Germany. Hence, he was not taxable in India and, therefore, his salary could not be included in the total income to be assessed in India. He was deputed by his company as a technical liaison officer to provide technical guidance to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. for which he was paid Rs. 500 as daily allowance. The said allowance was exempt from income-tax as per the Notification dt. 21st Feb., 1989. This being a finding of fact does not call for any interference in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

[Citation : 259 ITR 486]