Allowing the petition the Court held that, no specific reasons were recorded regarding the material which was not truthfully disclosed. In the original assessment the assessee had disclosed that he was governed by the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United Arab Emirates. The details called for had been furnished and placed on record. The passport also was produced to establish the number of days the assessee was abroad to qualify to be a non-resident. A perusal of the reasons for notice of reassessment clearly showed that the only reason was that the tax residency certificate or any other details were not supplied by the assessee. The requirement to produce the tax residency certificate was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from April 1, 2013. The present proceedings were in connection with the assessment year 2005-06 and there was no need of producing such certificate as on that date. Besides that, the requirement of stay in the United Arab Emirates for a period of six months had been introduced in article 4(b) of the amended Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the United Arab Emirates which came into effect only from November 28, 2007. Accordingly reassessment is held to be not valid. (AY.2005 -06)
Prashant M. Timblo v. CCIT (2019) 414 ITR 507 (Bom) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed CCIT v. Prashant M. Timblo (2018) 408 ITR 72 (St) (SC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Benefit of Double taxation benefit–Tax residency certificate-Introduced subsequently-Reassessment is bad in law-DTAA-India–UAE [S.148, Art. 4(b)]