JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. K. Gauba J.-These three appeals under section 260A of Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), arise out of common order dated April 11, 2014 (Suresh Nanda v. Asst. CIT [2014] 31 ITR (Trib) 620 (Delhi)), of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the ITAT") whereby cross-appeals of respondent-assessee and Revenue, for assessment years (AY) 2007-08 and 2008-09, against separate orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the CIT (Appeals)") dated March 18, 2013, and May 22, 2013, were decided. moot issue before first and second appellate authority in these matters was as to whether assessee could be treated as resident Indian for purposes of Act during assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. Whilst Assessing Officer ("the AO") and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) treated assessee as resident Indian since he was in India, during said years for periods amounting in all to more than 182 days, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by impugned order, upturned conclusion reached by said two authorities and agreed with assessee that his presence in India for said period in two of assessment years was under compulsion of legal process and, thus, unintentional. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that assessee continued to enjoy status of non-resident and, thus, not amenable to be held accountable under Income-tax Act for income not earned here. Revenue, feeling aggrieved, challenges said conclusion, raising following as substantial question of law: "Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in taking view that period for which assessee was in India involuntarily on account of his passport having been impounded is not to be counted for purposes of section 6(1)(a) of Income-tax Act so as to hold him entitled to be non-resident?" I. T. A. Nos. 722 and 723 of 2014 pertain to assessment year 2007-08. first appeal arises out of contentions that were urged before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by assessee in his appeal against order of Assessing Officer while second appeal relates to contentions of Revenue in its cross-appeal. ITA No. 715 of 2014, on other hand, pertains to assessment year 2008-09. Since abovementioned appeals for both said assessment years had converged before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which heard and decided them through common order, impugned before us, it is proper to take note of background facts as culled out therein for present discussion. It has been case of Revenue that Department of Income-tax having received information about involvement of assessee in brokering defence deals for Department of Defence Production and Supplies in Ministry of Defence of Government of India against Government's policy. Search operations were carried out under section 132 of Act on February 28, 2007, against him by concerned authorities. It appears from record that earlier action was taken in nature of impounding of passport of assessee on October 10, 2006, to preclude him from leaving India. It is claimed that searches and seizures resulted in evidence coming to fore about assessee having obtained huge amounts of commission from certain foreign entities which money, though received abroad, was brought into India in form of foreign direct investments (FDI) for being injected into different projects like hotels, real estate, etc. In wake of search and seizure action, case of assessee was centralised by Director of Income-tax-II, International Taxation, New Delhi, by order under section 127(2), as per file No. DIT(INTL.TAX.)-II/2007-08/32 dated October 26, 2007. In response to notice issued, assessee filed his return for assessment year 2007-08 on July 31, 2007, declaring his income of Rs. 8,66,980. Notice under section 143(2) was issued to him on July 30, 2008. Subsequently, on April 21, 2007, notice under section 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued followed by another notice under section 143(2) issued on September 24, 2009, and yet another detailed questionnaire on October 12, 2009. Finally, Assessing Officer passed assessment order for assessment year 2007-08 under section 143(3) on December 30, 2009. For assessment year 2008-09, assessee filed his return on July 31, 2008, declaring income of Rs. 81,75,150. notice was issued on November 21, 2008, under section 143(2). assessee later filed revised return on August 18, 2009, now declaring total income of Rs. 86,55,160. Another notice under section 143(2) was issued on January 29, 2010, followed by yet another notice under section 142(1) with detailed questionnaire issued on September 13, 2010. proceedings culminated in assessment order being framed on December 20, 2010, for assessment year 2008-09. From facts summarised by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 2 of impugned order, it may be noted that Assessing Officer had made additions of sum of Rs. 17,94,15,000 and Rs. 3,96,87,500 on account of investment in Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. by Universal Business Solutions Ltd. during assessment year 2007-08 and assessment year 2008-09, respectively; sum of Rs. 16,98,38,020 and Rs. 7,92,19,406 on account of investment by Palm Technologies in Mauritius Claridges during assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively; Rs. 7,29,000 and Rs. 23,66,190 on account of unexplained cash found at time of searches (for assessment year 2007-08); Rs. 28,47,533 on account of investment made in renovation of Sonali Farms (the assessment year 200708); Rs. 5,10,57,115 on account of deposit in Deutsche Bank, Singapore (the assessment year 2007-08); and Rs. 8,45,288 on account of foreign remittance taxable in India (the assessment year 2008-09). Feeling aggrieved, assessee filed appeals against both assessment orders before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). His Appeal No. 82/11- 12 for assessment year 2007-08 resulted in order dated March 18, 2013, of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Similarly, appeal No. 121/11-12 respecting assessment year 2008-09 was decided by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by order dated May 22, 2013. As mentioned earlier, Assessing Officer had treated assessee as resident Indian for two assessment years on account of his presence in India for periods exceeding 182 days, in terms of section 6(1)(a) of Income-tax Act. assessee contended before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that he has been assessed as non-resident consistently since 1985 and his stay in India during periods under consideration had exceeded 182 days because of reasons beyond his control since his passport had been impounded by Government agencies rendering him unable to travel from India. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected this contention and affirmed view taken by Assessing Officer holding assessee to be resident for purposes of two assessment years. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, deleted some of additions made by Assessing Officer upholding certain others "on protective basis". For clarity, it must be noted here that additions made on account of investments into Claridges Hotel Pvt. Ltd. by Universal Business Solution Ltd. were deleted as legally unsustainable since there was no evidence available to establish that money was sourced from assessee or any entity under his control. additions on account of investments by Palm Technologies Ltd. to Mauritius, Claridges were upheld "on protective basis" as unexplained investments under section 69, in hands of assessee, with observation that there was "a backward link between funds transferred... which have been sourced from entities under control" of assessee but with rider that same could be taxed as income-tax of assessee only if direct link was established, for ascertaining "real facts" in which regard directions were given to Assessing Officer to pursue reference made on subject to Governmental authorities in Mauritius, Jersey and British Virgin Island, in terms of Tax Information Exchange Agreements. challenge to all other additions noted above, however, failed as Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found explanations offered by assessee to be untenable. It may be added here that for assessment year 2007-08, Assessing Officer had also made addition of Rs. 1,20,73,114 on account of possession of jewellery of that value found in hands of assessee's wife. Assessing Officer had added said amount as taxable income of assessee for reasons wife did not have independent source of income. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, deleted said addition on ground that asset had been explained ("for good reasons") in case of assessee's wife. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in impugned order, has discussed at length facts and circumstances in which assessee was constrained to be in India for periods more than 182 days, inter alia, finding/concluding thus (page 653 of 31 ITR (Trib)): 43.... on October 10, 2006, CBI impounded assessee's passport suspecting his alleged broker's role in purchase of Barak Missiles from Israel in contravention of defence purchase policies. On assessee's application against illegal impounding of passport, learned Special Judge, CBI Court, by order dated January 15, 2007, directed for release of his passport on fulfilment of certain conditions. Before assessee could comply with those stringent conditions, CBI challenged CBI judge's order before hon'ble Delhi High Court. By order dated February 5, 2007, hon'ble Delhi High Court reversed this order of learned Special Judge, CBI. Against order of hon'ble Delhi High Court assessee approached hon'ble Supreme Court and hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated January 24, 2008, ordered for release of passport. Ironically before passport could be physically released consequent to Supreme Court order, passport authorities again impounded passport on March 25, 2008, under some other provisions. Against later order of passport authorities assessee again approached hon'ble Delhi High Court against impounding of passport, vide order dated October 5, 2010, was pleased to order for release of passport with condition that assessee will take permission of trial court before seeking to travel abroad. 44. assessee then filed application for permission to travel abroad for two months which was dismissed by trial court, vide its order dated October 25, 2010. Against this order, assessee again approached hon'ble Delhi High Court and hon'ble court, vide order dated September 21, 2011, directed trial court to permit assessee to go to London for period of two weeks on furnishing of security of Rs. 50 crores... passport was never handed over to assessee prior to September 21, 2011, order... 46. assessee was fervently raising issue of his NRI status and praying for release of his passport. It is evident from specific prayer raised before various courts... as is evident from paragraph 6 of hon'ble High Court's order which reads as under: 'It was claimed that in order to maintain his non-resident status in accordance with Income-tax Act, he has to remain out of India for more than 182 days and that continued seizure of his passport jeopardised his NRI status and resulted in irreparable loss. He also alleged that for more than three months since October 10, 2006, he had to postpone visits abroad and reschedule business meetings but such indefinite postponement could not be continued forever.' 47... it is very clear that assessee made every legal effort to maintain his past status as non-resident and endeavoured to defend his legal rights before various legal forums. Had passport been released after first order of Special Judge CBI court, assessee would have travelled abroad thus maintaining his NRI status, it is only wrongful impounding of passport which is cause of preventing assessee from exercising his lawful right of travelling abroad." Section 6(1)(a) of Income-tax Act which is at core of dispute needs to be noted. It reads as under: "6. Residence in India.-For purposes of this Act,- (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 hundred and eighty-two days or more;" Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in initial part of impugned order, noted that assessee has been treated as non-resident during period 1985-2006. It is admitted that his presence in India in said earlier period has been less than 182 days per assessment year. assessee's claims that for most of periods he was away from India, he had been living and working for gain from United Arab Emirates (UAE). gain from United Arab Emirates (UAE). It has been admitted case of assessee that he had come to India on September 28, 2006. It is undisputed that it was during visit to India beginning September 28, 2006, that his passport was impounded by CBI (on October 10, 2006). Further, passport was released pursuant to court orders, only on September 21, 2011. Thus, assessee was in India continuously and uninterruptedly from September 28, 2006, to September 21, 2011. This would mean that he was on Indian soil for 185 days during financial year 2006-07 (corresponding to assessment year 2007-08) and throughout during financial year 2007-08 (corresponding to assessment year 2008-09). By above account, strict interpretation and enforcement of rule contained in section 6(1)(a) of Income-tax Act would render assessee resident. plea raised, however, is that this would not be just or fair nor in consonance with intention of Legislature. It is trite that plain or literal interpretation of statutory provision is not to be adopted if it produces manifestly unjust results or absurdly unreasonable consequences which could never have been intended. To obviate injustice flowing from mechanical interpretation and to bring about rationality, it is permissible, even in field of taxation, to prefer such construction as results in equity over such literal meaning as is unjust. In taking this view, we draw strength from law laid down by Supreme Court, inter alia, in cases reported as CIT v. J. H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323 (SC) and C.W.S. (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 649 (SC). As is clear from factual matrix, it has been conscious decision taken, and choice made, by assessee to be non- resident consistently since 1985. It appears that he has been visiting India routinely but was never present in India (till financial year 2005-06) for more than 182 days. Thus, he consciously did not intend treatment as resident Indian for purposes of income-tax law. It appears that he has business interests abroad. His choice to be non-resident cannot be faulted. Given narrative of events wherein he was constrained to continue in India in course of his visit beginning September 28, 2006, it cannot be contended by Revenue that he intended to be in India by choice beyond October 10, 2006, day his passport came to be impounded by CBI. As noted at length by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, assessee made repeated pleas not only for removal of all restraints against his movement but more importantly, for release of his passport so that he could go abroad and retain NRI status he had been enjoying all along. In such fact situation, there can be no doubt whatsoever that his presence in India from October 10, 2006, onwards was not by his own choice or volition till day (September 21, 2011) shackles on his movement were removed upon passport being restored to him. It must also be noted here that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, final fact-finding forum for purposes of income-tax law, has also concluded that action of concerned Governmental agencies in impounding of passport was unjustified, illegal and untenable and, therefore, in nature of illegal restraint. Revenue does not even remotely challenge correctness of said conclusions in these appeals. As observed earlier, Income-tax Act leaves choice to citizen to be in India and be treated as resident for purposes of taxation or be not in India so as to avail of status of non-resident. simple test muster of which is to be passed is minimum prescribed period of presence in India in particular financial year. It naturally follows that option to be in India, or period for which Indian citizen desires to be here is matter of his discretion. Conversely put, presence in India against will or without consent of citizen, should not ordinarily be counted adverse to his chosen course or interest, particularly if it is brought about under compulsion or, to put it simply, involuntarily. There has to be, in opinion of this court, something to show that individual intended or had animus of residing in India for minimum prescribed duration. If record indicates that such as for instance omission to take steps to go abroad, stay can well be treated as disclosing intention to be resident Indian. Equally, if record discloses materials that stay (to qualify as resident Indian) lacked volition and was compelled by external circumstances beyond individual's control, she or he cannot be treated as resident Indian. We do not agree with contention of Revenue that section 6(1)(a) of Income-tax Act shall be strictly constructed or that it does not permit exceptions. case at hand itself is good example why literal interpretation of relevant statutory clause is not commended for such course might not only lead to unjust, unfair or absurd consequences but also be prone to abuse. While executive action resulted in his passport being unjustifiably impounded, this rendered if impossible for assessee to leave India. He virtually became unwilling resident on Indian soil without his consent and against his will. His involuntary stay during period that followed till passport was restored under court's directive, thus, must be excluded for calculating period under section 6(1)(a) of Income-tax Act. For foregoing reasons, we answer question of law in affirmative against Revenue. We must, however, add caveat here. conclusion reached by us on facts and in circumstances of case at hand cannot be treated as thumb rule to effect that each period of involuntary stay must invariably be excluded from computation for purposes of section 6(1)(a) of Income-tax Act. view taken by us in case of assessee here is in peculiar facts and circumstances wherein he was inhibited from travelling out of India on account of such action of law enforcement agencies as was found to be wholly unjustified. Here, it is important to notice that passport impounding order was invalidated as without authority of law. finding on whether in given case assessee's claim to extended stay being involuntary, has to be fact dependent. For purposes of section 6(1)(a), each case will have to be examined on its own merits in light of facts and circumstances leading to "involuntary" stay, if any, in India. Coming to other issues, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee with regard to addition made on account of deposit in Deutche Bank, Singapore (in assessment year 2007-08) and foreign remittance (in assessment year 2008-09), and rightly so, in wake of conclusion that assessee continues to be non-resident for purpose of said assessment years. It directed Assessing Officer to further inquire and verify facts with regard to investment made in Sonali Farms and recovery of what is described as unexplained cash (both relevant for assessment year 2007-08). Since such directions turned more on facts, result of appeal before Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mauritius Claridges. As noted above, Assessing Officer has not gathered any evidence showing nexus between assessee, on one hand, and entities from coffers of which such investments came, on other. At any rate, Income- tax Appellate Tribunal has not interfered with inquiries for which Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had given certain directions. Addition on account of jewellery, in given circumstances, was unfair since as noted by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, value of jewellery was also added in case of wife (of assessee) in whose possession said asset was discovered. question of law is answered against Revenue. Thus, no further question of law arises on above contentions of Revenue. Consequently, appeals are dismissed. Both parties are left to bear their own cost. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suresh Nanda