2016 (2) TMI 839 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal upholds CIT decision to delete Rs. 25,67,236 addition under IT Act

ITO, Ward 1 (1), Meerut Versus Shri Brijendra Pal Singh

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals) decision to delete an addition of Rs. 25,67,236 claimed exempt under section 10(8) of the Income-tax Act, ... Entitlement to exemption under section 10 (8) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As per the conditions prescribed in section 10 (8), the project Samastha which the employer of the assessee stems from the agreement between the Indian and the foreign State USA by virtue of agreement dated 30.09.1992 and the terms of the agreement specifically exempts income of the personnel working with the USAID Project as required by the section 10(8) of the Act and the assessee being paid indirectly by the United States Agency for International Development satisfies the requirement of law to claim exemption u/s 10 (8) of the Act. Moreover, we also get support from the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has also accepted the claim of the assessee in the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01. In the said factual backdrop and since there is no change in the facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and, therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 25,67,236 under section 10(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi pertained to the revenue challenging the order of the CIT (Appeals) regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 25,67,236 from M/s. Engender Health, New Delhi claimed exempt under section 10(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The AO had initially disallowed the exemption, but the CIT (A) overturned this decision based on the agreement between the Governments of India and USA, which provided for the exemption under this provision. The CIT (A) highlighted that the remuneration received by the individual should be directly or indirectly from the government of the foreign state for such duties. The agreement dated 30.09.1992 between the two countries played a crucial role in determining the eligibility for exemption under section 10(8) of the Act.The revenue contended that the assessee did not qualify for the exemption under section 10(8) as the employer did not have a direct agreement with the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The revenue argued that since the employment was with a subcontractor, it did not meet the criteria for exemption. However, the assessee's representative pointed out previous favorable decisions by the ITAT for the assessment years 1999-00 and 2000-01, emphasizing the eligibility for exemption based on the agreement between the US Government and the Indian Government, supported by relevant documents.Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal analyzed the conditions stipulated under section 10(8) of the Act, emphasizing the requirement for the assessee to be assigned to duties in India in connection with cooperative technical assistance programs and projects as per the agreement between the Central Government and a foreign State. The Tribunal noted that the employer of the assessee was indirectly paid by the United States Agency for International Development, meeting the criteria for exemption under section 10(8) of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision by a coordinate Bench supporting the assessee's claim for exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the agreement between the Governments of India and USA, the nature of the project, and the source of remuneration to determine the eligibility for exemption under section 10(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision highlighted the importance of meeting the specific conditions outlined in the law and previous judicial precedents in similar matters.