2007 (10) TMI 640 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction u/s 80RR of the IT Act.
2. Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the IT Act.
3. Validity of reopening proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Deduction u/s 80RR of the IT Act:

The assessee, a presenter, commentator, and programme compere, claimed deduction u/s 80RR of the IT Act, asserting he was an "artist." The CIT(A) and the Tribunal, following the decision in the assessee's own case for asst. yr. 1997-98, held that the assessee was not an actor or artist and thus not entitled to the deduction. The Tribunal emphasized the rule of consistency and judicial discipline, stating, "We therefore see no valid reason to take a view contrary to the one taken by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for asst. yr. 1997-98." The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's plea to follow the decision in Amitabh Bachchan vs. Dy. CIT, noting the factual differences between the cases.

2. Levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234C of the IT Act:

The assessee contested the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C, arguing that the estimation of current income was bona fide and that the AO did not provide a specific order for charging interest. The Tribunal, following its decision in the assessee's appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98, held that the levy of interest is mandatory and automatic upon assessment. The Tribunal stated, "Levy of interest is mandatory and automatic upon the assessment. Interest is levied to compensate the exchequer for delay in or non-payment of taxes." Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the levy of interest.

3. Validity of Reopening Proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act:

The assessee challenged the reopening of proceedings u/s 147, arguing it was based on a change of opinion. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Asstt. CIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., held that since the original returns were accepted u/s 143(1), there was no application of mind by the AO, and thus no question of change of opinion. The Tribunal concluded, "In this view of the matter, ground No. 5 taken in his appeal for asst. yrs. 1996-97, 1998-99 and ground No. 4 in asst. yr. 1999-2000 is dismissed."

Conclusion:

All the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed, and the prayer for the constitution of a Special Bench was rejected, as the matter was already pending before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court.