9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 80C(4)(i) would be Rs. 60,000. The Assessing Officer, however, noted that against the gross total income disclosed by the assessee of Rs. 3,90,821 including income from salary, profession, honorarium, interest and dividends, royalty received on publication of books was only Rs. 6,614. The Assessing Officer, therefore, took the view that it had not been established on facts that the primary activity of the assessee was that of an author and restricted the ceiling for deduction under section 80C to Rs. 40,000 only. The CIT (Appeals) also noted that the major income of the assessee was from the Madras Racing Undertaking and that receipts from royalty constituted a very small portion of the income of the assessee. He, therefore, up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent was to make available the benefit of the higher ceiling limit only to those persons having substantial income from the recognised profession. He argued that in the case of the assessee the income from such profession was only Rs. 6,614 and that the increase in the ceiling for deduction under section 80C from Rs. 40,000 could only be this additional sum of Rs. 6,614. He relied upon the comments made by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323 to the effect that taxing statutes would have to be interpreted in such a manner as to avoid an absurd result. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. It is a recognised fact that the assessee is a well-known author. As a matter of fact, in the order passed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total income chargeable to tax. It follows therefore that no such dichotomy is possible even within the framework of section 80C(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. We find that there is no indication as to the reason for the deletion of rule 11A and the enactment of section 80-C(4) in the new format effective from the assessment year 1984-85. It follows that we would be called upon to interpret the intention of Legislature in a manner which avoids injustice or leads to an absurd result. [See the observations of the Supreme Court in J.H. Gotla's case]. We note that Rule 11A which contained a provision for linking the ceiling prescribed under section 80C to the income derived by an individual assessee from his profession as an author h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
