2006 (2) TMI 211 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 23,33,000 on account of receipts from match-fixing.
2. Addition of Rs. 5,81,607 as amount received from BCCI/DDCA/Ranji Trophy.
3. Addition of Rs. 30,000 out of Rs. 4,05,000 on account of fees for playing in other cricket matches.
4. Addition of Rs. 1,05,000 out of Rs. 2,10,000 on account of receipts from Padiham Cricket Club.
5. Addition of Rs. 60,000 allegedly belonging to the assessee's wife.
6. Addition of Rs. 53,000 out of Rs. 70,000 on account of the purchase of a car.
7. Addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of sponsorship money received from Sanspareils Green Land Ltd.
8. Addition of Rs. 23,000 on account of alleged receivable amounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 23,33,000 on account of receipts from match-fixing:
The AO based the addition on reports from the CBI and Madhavan Commission, and the statement of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, noting that the AO could rely on "materials" rather than strict "evidence." The Tribunal, however, found that no evidence was unearthed during the search to conclusively prove the receipt of money for match-fixing. It emphasized that the material referred to by the AO did not constitute evidence found during the search. The Tribunal relied on the case of Manoj Prabhakar vs. Asstt. CIT, where similar additions were cancelled due to a lack of evidence found during the search. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 23,33,000.

2. Addition of Rs. 5,81,607 as amount received from BCCI/DDCA/Ranji Trophy:
The AO noted that the assessee did not declare cricketing receipts in his returns, except for the assessment year 1991-92. The CIT(A) excluded an amount of Rs. 2,38,240 and confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,81,607. The Tribunal agreed with the IT authorities, noting that the assessee was a professional cricketer and not entitled to deductions under the circular, which applied only to amateur cricketers. The Tribunal dismissed the ground.

3. Addition of Rs. 30,000 out of Rs. 4,05,000 on account of fees for playing in other cricket matches:
The AO estimated Rs. 15,000 per match for 27 matches, totaling Rs. 4,05,000. The CIT(A) held that only Rs. 30,000 for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 could be taxed as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no incriminating material or evidence seized during the search to show that the assessee received such monies. It deleted the addition of Rs. 30,000.

4. Addition of Rs. 1,05,000 out of Rs. 2,10,000 on account of receipts from Padiham Cricket Club:
The AO added Rs. 2,10,000, noting contradictory affidavits from the assessee. The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 1,05,000, estimating 50% of the gross receipt as expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the contract indicated the assessee had to bear conveyance expenses, which were accounted for in the 50% deduction.

5. Addition of Rs. 60,000 allegedly belonging to the assessee's wife:
The AO concluded that the amount was due to the assessee for services rendered to Video Track. The Tribunal found that no material or evidence was seized during the search to show that the amount was paid to the assessee. It deleted the addition, noting that the matter should be dealt with in regular assessment.

6. Addition of Rs. 53,000 out of Rs. 70,000 on account of the purchase of a car:
The AO based the addition on post-search enquiries. The Tribunal noted that no evidence was found during the search to show that the assessee paid Rs. 70,000 in cash. It deleted the addition, stating that post-search enquiries cannot be acted upon in the absence of evidence found during the search.

7. Addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of sponsorship money received from Sanspareils Green Land Ltd:
The AO added the amount under s.158BB(1)(ca) as the return was filed after the due date. The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting that the return could have been filed within the due date despite the assessee being out of India. It emphasized that the same amount cannot be taxed twice and directed the IT authorities to avoid double taxation.

8. Addition of Rs. 23,000 on account of alleged receivable amounts:
The AO added the amount based on a loose sheet found during the search, which the assessee admitted were amounts receivable. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, rejecting the assessee's later statement that the amounts were payable by him. It held that the addition was rightly made based on evidence found during the search.

← Previous Next →