COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUBBU SHASHANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue has come up on appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal whereby the order of the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the assessing authority with a direction to the assessee to produce the details of the repayment of loan to substantiate his claim loan by raising the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows:

(3.) The assessee is a renowned flute artiste. The assessee filed his return for the year 2004-05 claiming residential status as non-resident. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax noticed that the residential status as a "nonresident" claimed by the assessee was not correct and completed the assessment under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act as best judgment assessment by treating the status of the assessee as resident. The Assessing Officer also initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2004-05. The Assessing Officer calculated the number of days of stay of the assessee for the assessment year 2004-05 as 192 days and held that the assessee is the resident of India as per the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Income-tax Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee filed documentary evidence and produced two witnesses. The assessee also produced the statement obtained from one another person by name M. J. Narasimha. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering the evidence of the witnesses by name Ram Sethuraman and Ram Ganesan, who have stated that they have given loan as well as the letter of confirmation given by Mr. M. J. Narasimha, has allowed the appeal.