assessee individual has filed this appeal against order of CIT(A)-IV, Bangalore, dt. 14th March, 2005, for asst. yr. 2001-02. In this appeal assessee has challenged order of CIT(A) by which he has held status of assessee as resident . assessee has also challenged order for not permitting filing of additional evidence. assessee has also challenged inclusion of income from property at Primrose Road as deemed let out and rent being taken on notional basis and not allowing claim of assessee under s. 23(3) of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). assessee has also challenged order of CIT(A) that no appeal lies against determination of quantum of interest under s. 244A of Act. assessee has filed two additional grounds. first of it being that assessee having been held to be resident, Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Circle 19(1) did not have jurisdiction and second being with regard to levy of surcharge on assessee, as same is not payable by non-resident for assessment year in appeal. In support of admission of additional grounds, assessee has stated that assessee was in India only for 180 days is clearly recorded in order of AO and this going to root of matter, same may be admitted. Appearing for assessee, learned counsel, Mr. S. Ramasubramanian submitted facts of case. He submitted that assessee is partner in firm in India known in name and style of M/s Sheriff Constructions. counsel for assessee submitted that assessee had intention of exploring business propositions outside India and he, accordingly, applied for permission to RBI. RBI, vide its letter of 5th Jan., 2001 has categorically stated that any resident Indian can continue to be partner in firm on becoming non-resident Indian and that permission of RBI is no longer required. Accordingly, assessee had been going to various countries starting from March, 2000 to March, 2001 and on that basis, he was out of India for 185 days. At this point, he drew our attention to order of AO at p. 2 where under caption residential status , AO had clearly noted that assessee had stayed in India during financial year 2000-01 for 180 days only. He submitted by drawing our attention to provisions of s. 6(1)(a) of Act, that person would be resident of India only if he is in India for 182 days or more. He submitted that by virtue of this provision, assessee having been in India for just 180 days, he does not qualify to be resident. He submitted that AO applied sub-cl. (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 6 of Act and observed that in preceding four financial years assessee was in India for more than 360 days. He, accordingly, concluded that status of assessee is resident . He drew our attention to Explanation to sub-s. (1) of s. 6 which reads as under: "Explanation. In case of individual, (a) being citizen of India, who leaves India in any previous year as member of crew of Indian ship as defined in cl. (18) of s. 3 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958), or for purposes of employment outside India, provisions of sub-cl. (c) shall apply in relation to that year as if for words "sixty days", occurring therein, words "one hundred and eighty- two days" had been substituted. (b) being citizen of India, or person of Indian origin within meaning of Explanation to cl. (e) of s. 115C, who being outside India, comes on visit to India in any previous year, provisions of sub-cl. (c) shall apply in relation to that year as if for words "sixty days" occurring therein, words "one hundred and eighty-two days" had been substituted." He referred to words "for purposes of employment outside India". H e submitted meaning of expression "would have to be taken as any gainful employment outside India", need not necessarily be restricted to seeking refuge or work under employer. He submitted that employment could mean any kind of work not necessarily where employee-employer relation subsists. At this juncture, he drew our attention to decision of Supreme Court in CBDT vs. Aditya V. Birla (1988) 67 CTR (SC) 165: (1988) 170 ITR 137 (SC). He submitted that issue in case before Supreme Court was remuneration for services rendered outside India and remuneration received in foreign currency and claim of relief was made under s. 80RRA of Act. He submitted that remuneration necessarily does not engulf salary only but also amounts paid to consultant. He also drew our attention to Delhi High Court decision in K.R. Pradeep vs. CBDT (2006) 203 CTR (Del) 147: (2006) 282 ITR 526 (Del), where Court held that if person renders service outside India and receives remuneration in foreign currency, he would be entitled to deduction under s. 80RRA of Act. He also drew our attention to decision of jurisdictional High Court in A.S. Mani vs. Union of India (2003) 184 CTR (Kar) 511: (2003) 264 ITR 5 (Kar), for proposition that in order that person be entitled to deduction under s. 80RRA of Act, physical stay out of India is what is more important. He drew our attention to decision of this Tribunal in Iblex Gallagger (P) Ltd., in ITA Nos. 2274 to 2278/Bom/2004 for asst. yrs. 1994-95 to 1998-99 for proposition that it is not for assessee to confer any jurisdiction on officer assessing income. He submitted that jurisdiction is always conferred on AO on certain basis. He submitted that that reliance on this particular order would be elaborated by him little later. He submitted that in view of decision of Supreme Court, jurisdictional High Court as well as Delhi High Court, meaning of term contained in Explanation for purposes of employment outside India has to be construed as gainful employment not necessarily restricted to employer employee relationship kind of employment. He drew our attention to observation of AO under caption residential status and submitted that assessee filed his return of income in status of non-resident of India. He submitted that this was so done by assessee by considering order made by CIT (International Taxation), Bangalore, describing jurisdiction of Range-19, Bangalore. He submitted that this schedule brings about jurisdiction to be exercised by officers of various wards. He submitted that ITO, International Taxation, Ward-19, Bangalore, has territorial area covering urban and rural districts of Bangalore. persons and classes of persons that fall within his purview or jurisdiction would be persons being non-residents. It is on such persons, functions and powers relating to tax and tax deducted at source can be exercised by AO and cases or classes of cases are with reference to persons, classes of persons defined. He submitted that with reference to this particular conferment of jurisdiction on Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Ward-19(1), said officer could assess or it could be stated that such officer has jurisdiction to assess all non-residents including companies. He submitted that this means that Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Ward-19(1), Bangalore has territorial jurisdiction of urban and rural districts of Bangalore, is with reference to persons in those areas who are non-residents. It was, accordingly, submitted that Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Ward-19(1) not having been conferred jurisdiction to assess residents, it is not open to Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Ward-19(1) to refuse to give assessee status of non-resident. According to counsel for assessee, in order that Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Ward-19(1) could proceed with assessment, he must be impressed with jurisdiction and this jurisdiction is extended to only non- residents. conferred jurisdiction not being extended to residents, officer having refused to accept status of assessee as non-resident, could not, therefore, proceed with assessment on resident. He submitted that reference made earlier on order of Tribunal in Iblex Gallagger (P) Ltd. (supra) was for proposition that exercise of jurisdiction without conferment of jurisdiction, order would be invalid in eye of law. He further submitted that this order also categorically observed that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on AO by consent of assessee. He, accordingly, concluded that AO had no jurisdiction or any authority not to accept claim of status of assessee as non-resident. Alternatively, AO having found that status as non-resident claimed by assessee could not be accepted, he should have transferred file to officer who had jurisdiction over assessee on territorial basis, or on any other basis prescribed by CIT, Bangalore. He, accordingly, submitted that order passed by AO was without jurisdiction. He submitted that CIT(A) did not give much importance to claim of assessee with regard to status, but facts are so apt and clear that decision in this regard is very much necessary. He submitted that additional ground number one is covered by above argument and additional ground number two is consequential one i.e., on non-resident, surcharge is not leviable. On issue on merits, learned counsel had challenged status as also furnishing of additional evidence. Both these aspects are in connection with certain expenditure that assessee claimed, namely, interest payments which were not allowed on reasoning that borrowed amount was received from firm in which assessee was partner, income from which firm is not taxable in hands of assessee individual. claim of assessee with regard to additional evidence is with reference to interest on savings bank cannot be treated as income from other sources and to that extent expenditure should be set off which CIT(A) negatived on reasoning that assessee did not make claim of deduction of expenditure from income from other sources . other issue is with regard to including notional rent of property at Primrose Road. He submitted that issue may be remanded to file of AO for verification and allowing accordingly. In regard to other ground of inclusion of notional rent, he submitted that AO included notional rent by applying provisions of s. 23(2) of Act. He submitted that it is not in dispute that assessee had residential house in his name. His daughter did not permit him to enter house and, therefore, he was compelled to stay with his son. property is, therefore, such that it could not be occupied by owner because of circumstances. He submitted that, therefore, inclusion of notional income is improper and, therefore, must be deleted. last of issue is with regard to claim of raising of issue of correct quantification of interest under s. 244A of Act which, CIT(A) has held that it is not appealable issue, but issue for which assessee should approach office of AO for rectification. counsel for assessee submitted that s. 244A talks of refund of any amount due to assessee. refund has arisen consequent to tax levied on assessee having been reduced and covers one very important element i.e., period from which interest is due to assessee. He, therefore, submitted that it is no different from interest that is due to assessee as has been held by Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Bharat Motors Service (1987) 60 CTR (Kar) 114: (1987) 163 ITR 843 (Kar). learned Departmental Representative, Mr. K.P. Rao vehemently contended every issue that was raised by counsel for assessee. He referred to decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kakunuru Venkata Reddy vs. CIT (1979) 9 CTR (AP) 1: (1979) 118 ITR 917 (AP) for proposition that objection to jurisdiction should have been raised before AO and could not be raised for first time in appeal. learned Departmental Representative also drew our attention to decision of Gauhati High Court in Smt. Sohani Devi Jain vs. ITO 1978 CTR (Gau) 169: (1977) 109 ITR 130 (Gau) for same proposition that officer had rightly assumed jurisdiction. He submitted by drawing our attention to provisions of s. 6, Expln. (a) that words for purposes of employment outside India have not been defined in Explanation or in section to have wider import, that is to cover situation as to assessee is, namely, even business for which assessee went out of India would be covered by term employment . He submitted that when income from firm in hands of partner is not included in his total income, it is something on which assessee does not pay tax. assessee could not claim deduction of any expenditure because allowing of expenditure would have to be necessarily with reference to income that is included in total income. When no amount is included in total income, allowing of deduction of expenditure would further reduce taxable income, which is not intention of Act. He submitted that alternative claim of assessee could be verified by AO. Insofar as claim of higher amount of interest under s. 244A of Act is concerned, he submitted that it is purely matter of calculation and, therefore, CIT(A) was justified in not entertaining same. contentions of parties have been brought out in earlier paras. case law relied upon have also been noted at relevant paras. above submissions of both parties have been very carefully considered and in following paras we give our conclusion on various grounds as raised by assessee. In ground No. 2, assessee has raised issue of being assessed in status of resident and in ground No. 3, refusal of CIT(A) to admit additional evidence which is connected with ground No. 2 is mentioned. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. additional ground that has been raised by assessee is with regard to status and is with reference to jurisdiction of officer assessing assessee and other additional ground is that surcharge is not leviable on non-resident . accepted fact is that assessee filed this return of income before Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Circle-19(1), Bangalore. This return was so filed by assessee on premise that assessee was in India during relevant previous year for 180 days only. additional evidence that assessee sought for admission before CIT(A) is letter dt. 5th Jan., 2001 from RBI, Exchange Control Department, Central Office, Mumbai to M/s India Builders Corporation in which assessee is partner. This was in reply to letter from firm dt. 4th Sept., 2000, addressed to Chief General Manager, Exchange Control Department of RBI. letter of firm and reply from RBI, being relevant for issue, are reproduced below: I. Letter of India Builders Corporation dt. 4th Sept., 2000 addressed to Chief General Manager, Exchange Control Department, RBI, Mumbai: "We wish to inform you that we are firm carrying on business of development of real estate. One of our partners, Mr. Ziaulla Sheriff has informed us that he has become person resident outside India. We understand that as per s. 6(5) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, said Mr. Ziaulla Sheriff can continue to be partner and make investments in partnership firm. We are intimating you through this letter of fact that Mr. Ziaulla Sheriff is person resident outside India. We are enclosing copy of partnership deed." II. Letter of RBI, Exchange Control Department, Central Office, Mumbai addressed to M/s India Builders Corporation, dt. 5th Jan., 2001: "Please refer to your letter dt. 4th Sept., 2000 on above subject. We advise that in terms of s. 6(5) of FEMA, 1999, resident Indian can continue as partner in partnership firm on becoming non-resident Indian and for this RBI permission is not required. However, you may please note that all his investments by way of capital contribution in partnership firm as resident will be on non-repatriation basis. For investments in partnership firm/proprietory concern engaged in real estate business, we advise that NRIs are not permitted to make any fresh investment towards capital contribution in firm either on repatriation or on non-repatriation basis. Accordingly, resident on becoming NRI, cannot contribute to share capital of firm either on repatriation or on non-repatriation basis. Incidentally, you may also let us know country of residence of Mr. Ziaulla Sheriff and his date of becoming NRI. Further, you may also advise whether he has contributed any further capital after his becoming NRI." contention of assessee as noted earlier was that assessee had gone out of India to explore business probabilities and hence, he was in India for just 180 days. He submitted that RBI was informed of this by firm in which assessee was partner. assessee had further contended that s. 6(1) of IT Act, 1961, which described in case of individual, circumstances under which he would be treated as resident. This being essential for this particular case, we are reproducing same for sake of facility: "Sec. 6 (1): individual is said to be resident in India in any previous year, if he (a) is in India in that year for period or periods amounting in all to one (a) is in India in that year for period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty-two days or more; or (b)......... (c) having within four years preceding that year been in India for period or periods amounting in all to three hundred and sixty-five days or more, is in India for period or periods amounting in all to sixty days or more in that year. Explanation In case of individual,: (a) being citizen of India, who leaves India in any previous year as member of crew of Indian ship as defined in cl. (18) of s. 3 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958) or for purposes of employment outside India, provisions of sub-cl. (c) shall apply in relation to that year as if for words "sixty days", occurring therein, words "one hundred and eighty- two days" had been substituted; (b) being citizen of India, or person of Indian origin within meaning of Explanation to cl. (e) of s. 115C, who being outside India, comes on visit to India in any previous year, provisions of sub-cl. (c) shall apply in relation to that year as if for words "sixty days", occurring therein, words "one hundred and eighty-two days" had been substituted." other parts of section, namely sub-s. (2) applies to HUF, company and so on and they not being relevant to issue, are not reproduced above. contention of assessee was that cl. (a) of said section would treat assessee as resident only if he had been in India for 182 days or more and since assessee was in India for just 180 days, he is not resident. assessee then submitted that assessee in preceding four years was no doubt in India for period that exceeded 365 days, and that in preceding year he was no doubt in India in excess of 60 days, but Expln. (a) gives him reprieve from rigors of 60 days and 182 days. Since he was in India just for 180 days in previous year, he would satisfy this condition also. further contention of assessee was that words used "being citizen of India, who leaves India in any previous year for purposes of employment outside India" would have to be taken as covering person going for business exploration outside India. It is in this connection that he had also relied upon certain decisions with reference to remuneration received for services outside India as contained in s. 80RRA of Act. Sec. 6 of Act, as it stands had provided alternatives. first of alternative was that person would be resident if he is in India for 182 days or more. second alternative was that if he had been in India for preceding four years for 365 days or more and in relevant previous year for 60 days or more. Explanation as reproduced earlier talks of individual who being citizen of India leaves India in any previous year as member of crew of Indian ship and to this proposition, alternative proposition has been provided as "or for purposes of employment outside India". assessee wants us to read words employment as including business. Cambridge International Dictionary of English defines term employee as person who is paid for working for someone else. same dictionary when it comes to employment refers to term employment as job or business. same dictionary defines term business as activity of buying and selling goods and services or work in general rather than mere pleasure. section as it was amended by Direct Tax Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1989, perhaps was oblivious to present day situation at which point of time, India has been into global business. global business was started from year 1997 onwards. Considering this feature, we are not in position to accept claim of assessee that term employment outside India would also include business outside India. Various authors on jurisprudence, interpretation of statutes, as well as Courts over years have been very conscious of certain rules of interpretation of statute and one of them is rule of ejusdem generis. rule applies when "(a) statute contains enumeration of specific words; (2) subjects of enumeration constitute class or category; (3) that class or category is not exhausted by enumeration; (4) general terms follow enumeration; and (5) there is no indication of different legislative intent. other rule is noscitur socii. This rule as explained by Lord Macmillan means: "The meaning of word is to be judged by company it keeps. As stated by Privy Council" "It is legitimate rule of construction to construe words in Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them. It is rule wider than rule of ejusdem generis; rather latter rule is only application of former. rule has been lucidly explained by Gajendragadkar J. in following words: This rule, according to Maxwell, means that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take as it were their colour from each other, that is, more general is restricted to sense analogous to less general. same rule is thus interpreted in words and phrases........ Associated words take their meaning from one another under doctrine of noscitur socii, philosophy of which is that meaning of doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is broader than maxim ejusdem generis . In fact latter maxim is only illustration or specific application of broader maxim noscitur socii. It must be borne in mind that noscitur socii, is merely rule of construction and it cannot prevail in cases where it is clear that wider words have been deliberately used in order to make scope of defined word correspondingly wider. It is only where intention of legislature in associating wider words with words of narrower significance is doubtful, or otherwise not clear that present rule of construction can be usefully applied. Going by above proposition and manner in which words for purposes of employment outside India have been used, it has to be taken to mean as in search of work for which assessee would receive salary or remuneration. insistence of assessee that word remuneration as contained in s. 80RRA of Act has been interpreted widely should be imported into section, we are unable to accept for reason that s. 6 does not contain term remuneration . All that it contains is employment . It is, therefore, not possible to import rulings or meanings as contained in s. 80RRA of Act into s. 6 of Act. In view of above, status of assessee for relevant previous year would be that of resident. contentions of assessee with reference to above have been so considered in conclusions arrived at with reference to his claim of filing return in status of non-resident with Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Ward-19(1), Bangalore. basic ground of assessee is with reference to fact that return having been filed with Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Ward-19(1), that particular officer has jurisdiction to assess non-residents in that status only. In support of his claim, he had filed copy of jurisdiction of Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Circle-19(1), Bangalore, especially jurisdiction of Range-19, Bangalore, as item No. 3 delineates powers of ITO (International Taxation). ITO shall exercise powers and functions as mentioned below: ITO (International Taxation), Ward-19(1) has been given territorial area of urban and rural districts of Bangalore. Such exercise of power is over persons, classes of persons, namely, persons being non-residents including foreign companies that have PEs in terms of applicability of DTAA or having business connection or having source of income accruing or arisen or due to arise in areas falling within territorial area of urban and rural districts of Bangalore. powers and functions are powers as AO under Act relating to TDS covering all persons as mentioned above. cases or classes of cases are that AO shall exercise powers in respect of persons mentioned above and only classification is alphabetic classification. Since there are more than one ward, Ward-19(1) is limited to to m, Ward-19(2) starts with n and ends to z. claim of assessee was that AO, International Taxation could assess only persons who are non-residents. assessee has filed return of income in status of non-resident and, therefore, if AO was of view that status of assessee could not be non-resident then he does not acquire jurisdiction. He, therefore, pleaded that officer does not get any power to change status from non-resident to resident and consequence is that present assessment is without jurisdiction. list of jurisdiction as above also states that Dy./Asstt. CIT (International Taxation), Circle-19(1) will have concurrent jurisdiction with International Taxation, Wards-19(1) and 19(2), Bangalore. contention of Departmental Representative was that primary duty of any officer is to verify status of person who has filed return. In instant case, assessee had filed return as non-resident and AO had verified same and found that claim was not acceptable and consequence was that assessee has to be treated as resident. Departmental Representative had referred to decision of Smt. Sohani Devi Jain (supra) where assessment proceedings on one assessee by two different officers were found to be valid. It was submitted that consequence of treating assessee as non-resident would not create situation as claimed by assessee that officer had no jurisdiction. delineation of jurisdiction of Asstt. CIT (International Taxation) that was brought out in earlier para makes no bones and does not extend jurisdiction of AO (International Taxation) to persons who are residents. All persons who are residents falling within urban and rural area districts of Bangalore are, therefore, outside purview of AO (International Taxation). This is because, persons who are classified as residents are not part of persons or classes of persons on whom AO (International Taxation) had been delegated power of exercising under IT Act. In instant case, as facts stand assessee claimed status of non-resident for reasons brought out in earlier paras and had filed it with AO (International Taxation), Ward-19(1), Bangalore. In view of specific delegation of exercising power as AO only on persons who could be called non-residents, AO (International Taxation), on finding that assessee does not satisfy conditions of non-resident, proper course of action that was expected of him was to transfer file to AO who had territorial jurisdiction over assessee as resident or to such officer who would have jurisdiction over assessee. question that came up during course of hearing was, is AO (International Taxation) expected to pass order with reference to his finding on claim of status of assessee. Normally, status of person is part of assessment order. In instant case, AO having noted from facts on record and on applying principles of law that he would not have jurisdiction over assessee, he may express his reasons therefor in order sheet, which may form basis for CIT for transferring file to officer who would have jurisdiction over him. question is whether this opinion so expressed by AO forming part of order-sheet and basis on which it is passed, is order or not. This question is with reference to whether it would result in assessee filing of appeal against said conclusion of AO. In order to appreciate this point it would be necessary to go to provisions of s. 246 of Act. Sec. 246(a) of Act provides that person could file appeal against order because assessee denies his liability to be assessed under this Act or extent of income assessed or to status under which he is assessed. From that point of view, it looks that opinion expressed by AO would become order against assessee in regard to status. But since additional words used are status under which he is assessed, mere expression of status which is starting point for framing of assessment would be incomplete if assessment is not framed. From that point of view perhaps appeal may not lie. Be that as it may, right of appeal could still be available to assessee in regard to status even when assessment is transferred to officer having jurisdiction as noted above. Since very crux of jurisdiction is shaken in instant case, that is AO (International Taxation) having found assessee to be resident, he exercised jurisdiction over him. Since he had exercised jurisdiction without authority and without any authorization therefor, order passed by him suffers from lack of jurisdiction. Such order would, therefore, become illegal order and non est in eye of law. We hold accordingly and quash order. Though it may not be necessary to go into merits of issue before us, namely, inclusion of rent on notional basis and calculation error in interest under s. 244A of Act, we would, as abundant precaution cover these two issues also. fact that assessee owned house is accepted. claim of assessee is that assessee (sic house) is under occupation of his daughter and, therefore, he was deprived of using that house by himself and that such deprivation may be considered in manner in which it has been so stated in s. 23(2)(b) of Act. contention of assessee is that house could not be occupied by reason of his employment, business or profession and that he was compelled to reside with his son though in same city. On this, s. 23(2) of Act, is reproduced below for sake of facility: "Sec. 23 (2): Where property consists of house or part of house which: (a) is in occupation of owner for purposes of his own residence; or (b) cannot actually be occupied by owner by reason of fact that owing to his employment, business or profession carried on at any other place, he has to reside at that other place in building not belonging to him, annual value of such house or part of house shall be taken to be nil." reading of above section says, person who owns house and in v i e w of fact that his employment, business or profession required his presence at any other place, and he has to reside in building not belonging to him, in that case, ALV of property shall be taken to be nil. In instant case, assessee was in Bangalore, living with his son and his property is also in Bangalore in which his daughter is residing. Therefore, his claim that notional rent should not be included as part of total income is not acceptable and is, accordingly rejected. Insofar as working of interest under s. 244A of Act is concerned, t h e CIT(A) may not be said to be justified in not accepting claim. assessee has claimed that interest is payable for longer period, goes to very root of chargeability of interest in favour of assessee and, therefore, it is only proper he should have considered same and it is not isolated ground from other grounds. Since it is raised along with other grounds, same should have been considered. However, since it is matter of examination and calculation also, AO is directed to examine same and rework same in accordance with provisions of law. second part of additional ground, namely, that surcharge is not leviable on non-resident becomes infructuous in view of fact that assessee is resident. assessment not being in accordance with law is quashed, subject to our observations as above. In result, appeal is allowed. *** ZIAULLA SHERIFF v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)