Smt. Maya C Nair Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The contention that the assessee did not furnish TRC and therefore it cannot be allowed the exemption is not correct. The furnishing of TRC is applicable only to cases where the benefits under the DTAA are claimed; as can be made out from a plain reading of Sec.90(1) of the Act. Further, in the decision cited by the learned Departmental Representative (supra), the Tribunal had held that absence of TRC cannot be a ground for denying the benefit of DTAA. It has only held that the assessee should furnish evidence for the claim of exemption. In the case on hand, the assessee has furnished evidence of her stay abroad in the year under consideration before the Assessing Officer and as the salary for services rendered did not accrue in India for that period of stay outside India, that salary income is not taxable in India. I, therefore, am inclined to agree with the assessee’s contention that the finding of the CIT(Appeals) – 12 in her order dt.31.10.2017 is based on application of sound principles to the facts of the assessee’s case and no useful purpose would be served by remanding the case to the CIT(Appeals)-10, Bangalore, as sought by the learned Departmental Representative. In view of the above, we hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the salary income of the assessee is incorrect and the action of the CIT(Appeals)-10 in confirming the said addition ex-parte, without examining the facts and underlying principles of the case and judicial pronouncements in this regard is untenable and is therefore cancelled. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
