2002 (5) TMI 201 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the Appellant's claim u/s 80RR.
2. Definition of 'artist' u/s 80RR.
3. Alternative claim of the Appellant as an 'actor' u/s 80RR.
4. Filing of Form No. 10H for claiming deduction u/s 80RR.
5. Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C.

Summary:

1. Rejection of the Appellant's claim u/s 80RR:
The appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80RR was rejected by the Assessing Officer (AO) and sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], on the grounds that the appellant's profession as a commentator and presenter of cricket programs on TV does not fall within the ambit of section 80RR.

2. Definition of 'artist' u/s 80RR:
The CIT(A) held that the appellant's profession cannot be regarded as that of an 'artist' within the ordinary sense or dictionary meaning of the word. The dictionary meaning emphasizes human creative skill in various branches of creative activity, which was found to be incidental rather than predominant in the appellant's profession. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the appellant's activities do not contribute to the greater understanding of the country and its culture abroad, which is a requirement for the deduction u/s 80RR.

3. Alternative claim of the Appellant as an 'actor' u/s 80RR:
The appellant's alternative claim of being an 'actor' was also rejected. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's job as a TV commentator and presenter does not involve acting or pretending to be something he is not. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is not an 'actor' for the purposes of section 80RR.

4. Filing of Form No. 10H for claiming deduction u/s 80RR:
The AO rejected the appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80RR on the additional ground that the required certificate in Form No. 10H was not filed along with the original or revised return. The Tribunal, however, noted that the certificate was filed during the assessment proceedings and that the requirement for filing Form No. 10H was introduced for the first time in the assessment year 1997-98. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of filing Form No. 10H, but this discussion was academic as the appellant was not entitled to the deduction u/s 80RR.

5. Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C:
The appellant contended that interest u/s 234B and 234C cannot be charged without a specific order by the AO. The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under these sections is mandatory and compensatory in nature, and does not require a separate order. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, which clarified that the expression 'shall' in sections 234A, 234B, and 234C indicates that the collection of statutory interest is mandatory.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the rejection of the appellant's claim for deduction u/s 80RR and the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C.