JUDGMENT

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - We have heard Mr. Pinto at some length.

2. He would submit that the questions proposed by the Revenue are indeed substantial questions of law.

3. The Tribunal was in error in reversing an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. That is done on misreading of the legal provisions and particularly the status of the respondent/assessee.

4. Having perused the order under Appeal, we are unable to agree with Mr. Pinto. The Tribunal had before it the entire factual conspectus. The respondent/gentleman before the Tribunal and before us has been serving in ''M/S Morgan Stanley International (Inc)'' of the USA. He was on deputation to India. He filed return of income for Assessment Year 2003- 2004 on 19th October 2004, claiming the status of a ''Resident'', but ''not ordinarily resident'' within the meaning of Section 6 sub-section 6 clause (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He offered the salary earned in India to the extent of Rs. 3,23,23,506/- to tax. He offered further income under the head ''Short Term Capital Gain'' and ''Bank Interest'' on his own, which the Assessing Officer brought to tax by his Assessment Order o