Pawan Yadav vs Joint Commissioner, Income Tax
2007 Latest Caselaw 298 Del

JUDGMENT

CM No. 2272/2007 (Exemption):

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. CM stands disposed of.

I.T.A. 154/2007 and CM No. 2271/2007 (Stay)

3. The assessed is aggrieved by an order dated October 6, 2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "A" in I.T.A. No. 2967 (Del)/99 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97 and in I.T.A. No. 1240(Del)/2000 for the assessment year 1997-98.

4. The only question that has arisen in this appeal is whether the assessed maintained an office in India for his business purposes. This is essentially a question of fact and the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessed was maintaining an office in India for his business purposes. We do not find any perversity in the view taken by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

5. The Tribunal has found that the assessed paid salaries amounting to Rs. 93,900 to some employees in India. Learned Counsel for the assessed informs us that this includes a gardener, a driver and some person employed in the office of the assessed to answer telephone calls, etc. This clearly shows that the assessed was running an office in India. The Tribunal has also noted that other expenses under the heads conveyance, repairs and maintenance, business promotion expenses, miscellaneous expenses and depreciation on fixed assets lead to an inescapable conclusion that an office was being maintained in India by the assessed. The assessed used to travel outside India quite frequently and after each journey he would come back to India.

6. Taking all these facts into consideration, the Tribunal has noted that the assessed was maintaining an office in India.

7. Since no substantial question of law arises, the appeal is dismissed.