TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service passport issued by the Government of Austria. Clause (ii) of sub-section (6) of section 10 clearly stipulates that the remuneration received as an official by whatever name called of an Embassy (which is Austrian Embassy in the present case) is not includable in the taxable income of an assessee. Therefore, the certificate issued by the Austrian Embassy cannot be doubted or disregarded in view of said provision and other surrounding facts and circumstances and duties assigned to the assessee by the Austrian Embassy are also mentioned in her passport by the Government of Austria. Therefore, assessee has been in full time employment with the Austrian Embassy, Commercial Section. CIT(A) has also taken a basis for denying the exemption u/s 10(6)(ii) of the Act that the assessee is not eligible for any pension, social or accident insurance, gratuity, etc., but, this is not a precondition for allowing exemption u/s 10(6)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the basis on which the ld.CIT(A) denied the benefit of the said exemption cannot be held as good and sustainable. As it is not the case of the authorities below that the officials of Indian Embassy are not getting the same ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .s. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that before the authorities below it was rightly submitted that all required information and documents as requested by the AO and the CIT(A) has been submitted and the evidence submitted before the ld.CIT(A) was also confronted to the AO and a remand report had also been obtained on 14.05.2019. The ld. AR submitted that since the appellant was employed with the Austrian Trade Commission and the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee represents the receipts from such employment earned @ EUR 1800/- per month which was duly deposited in her bank account, the same is exempt u/s 10(6)(ii) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that while the remuneration has not been defined in the Income-tax Act, it is understood to be the money paid in any form to any person for services rendered by him. The ld. AR vehemently pointed out that with this understanding, it cannot be argued that the monthly remuneration received by the assessee in her designation of a Consultant is not exempt under the purview of section 10(6)(ii) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that even if one were to agree to the spurious argument that the definition of remuneration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was effectively engaged on contractual agreement basis as Consultant which is not under exemption available as per section 10(6)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the orders of the authorities below may kindly be upheld. 5. On careful consideration of the above submissions, I am of the considered view that the AO picked up the case for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and the same was not responded by the assessee and the AO passed the assessment order ex parte on the basis of best judgement u/s 144 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the assessee filed written submissions on which remand report was called from the AO, and, after obtaining rejoinder/comments of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned first appellate order. Before the ld.CIT(A), it was contended that the payment received by the assessee is eligible for exemption under the provisions of section 10(6)(ii) of the Act and the certificate issued by the Embassy clearly specify that the assessee is part of their organization and not just an external consultant. 6. I may point out that the assessee has furnished two certificates issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilar exemption in that country. 9. In the present case, the main allegation and basis taken by the authorities below is that the assessee is not a staff member or any official, but, was engaged as Consultant on contractual agreement basis, therefore, the exemption u/s 10(6)(ii) of the Act is not available to her. From the copy of passport placed on record, I observe that in the official endorsement, it has been mentioned that the assessee is responsible as head of Technology at Austrian Trade Commission in New Delhi. The certificate issued by the Austrian Embassy clearly reveals that the assessee was appointed as Consultant in the Austrian Trade Commission in the field of Mechanical Engineering Terotechnology and Automotive Industry, from the relevant financial period and subsequent certificate dated 17.06.2019 further clarify that the assessee has been under full time employment with Austrian Embassy, Commercial Section. This is also in conformity with the entries in the passport of the assessee. The copy of passport also reveals that the assessee is not having an ordinary passport, but, a service passport issued by the Government of Austria. At the cost of repetition, I may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
