Hilmi Mohammad Ehsan Dilloo (Appellant) v The Assessment Review Committee and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0108

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Hilmi Mohammad Ehsan Dilloo

Respondent(s)

Assessment Review Committee

The Director General, Mauritius Revenue Authority

Issue

Did the Supreme Court of Mauritius err in their interpretation of “permanent place of abode” for the purposes of section 73(1)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1995 (the “ITA”)?

Facts

The Appellant, Hilmi Mohammad Ehsan Dilloo, is a Mauritian national who was employed as a sales manager in Saudi Arabia. The Appellant did not submit his returns of income for 2016/2017 to 2018/2019 (the “Assessment Years”). The Director General of the Mauritius Revenue Authority issued notices of assessment claiming a total amount of Rs 5,069,003 for the Assessment Years in income tax. This was based on: (i) the money transferred from his Saudi Arabian bank account into his Mauritius account (the “Bank Transfers”); and (ii) the rental income received from his property in Mauritius. The latter was conceded to be taxable, however, the Appellant challenged the former. The Director General considered that the Bank Transfers were taxable as there was no substantive or compliant evidence submitted by the Appellant that he was resident in Saudi Arabia with the result that, in accordance with section 73(1)(a) ITA, he was resident in Mauritius and any income received in Mauritius, including the Bank Transfers, was taxable under section 5 ITA. The Appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Committee (the “ARC”. The ARC afforded a differing interpretation to the main provision in the ITA but considered that the Appellant was resident in Mauritius. The decision was appealed by both parties to the Supreme Court of Mauritius. On 8 May 2024, the Supreme Court of Mauritius ruled primarily in favour of the Director general and considered that the Appellant had not provided sufficient evidence or challenge to the ARC decision on his residence in Mauritius. The Appellant did not appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council within the statutory deadline of 21 days. On 11 June 2024, 13 days after the deadline, the Appellant requested leave from the Supreme Court of Mauritius to appeal notwithstanding the delay. On 3 September 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal the 8 May 2024 judgment.