9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aning of s. 80RR of the IT Act and hence not entitled to deduction claimed under s. 80RR of ₹ 6,87,198 by the appellant and learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 2. The learned ITO has erred in not considering the claim of the appellant at least if not as an actor but as an artist without appreciating the facts of the case and learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned ITO has erred in computation of deduction (without prejudice) even if allowed at ₹ 6,87,198 on net income as against the claim of ₹ 4,35,006 made by the appellant without giving any opportunity of hearing and without appreciating the language of s. 80RR of the IT Act and learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a well-known presenter, commentator and programme compere of various sports, live and recorded, telecast on television, received a sum of ₹ 9,16,264 in asst. yr. 1996-97, ₹ 14,84,012 in asst. yr. 1998-99, ₹ 24,76,176 in asst. yr. 1999-2000 and ₹ 2,14,814 in asst. yr. 2001-02 for performing as a presenter, commentator and programme compere on television. The said sums w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similarity of facts stated by him, he submitted that the decision taken by this Tribunal in Amitabh Bachchan should be followed in the case of the assessee also to avoid discrimination between two similarly placed persons. He has given a long list of judicial authorities to support the order of this Tribunal in Amitabh Bachchan and also to support his submission that the said order in Amitabh Bachchan should be followed in the case of the assessee notwithstanding the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for asst. yr. 1997-98. His alternative submission was that the matter should be referred to a Special Bench for resolving the conflict in the views taken by Division Benches of this Tribunal in assessee's own case and in the case of Amitabh Bachchan. 6. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. She has filed her written submissions in this behalf, which read as under : In these appeals, CIT(A) has confirmed the stand taken by the AO that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction under s. 80RR. Your Honour, similar issue was involved in appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98 in assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded a categorical finding in Amitabh Bachchan's case that the facts in the case of the assessee are clearly distinguishable with those in the case of Amitabh Bachchan (supra) and therefore it is not open to us, according to her, to take a diametrically opposite view now and hold that the facts in the case of the assessee are identical with those in Amitabh Bachchan. She submits that the Tribunal has not overruled or superceded the order of this Tribunal in the case of the assessee while passing the order in Amitabh Bachchan and therefore we are bound, according to her, to follow the order passed by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case. 8. We have heard the parties and considered their submissions including the judicial authorities referred to by them. There is no dispute that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has rejected the claim of the assessee in his own appeal for asst. yr. 1997-98. The said order is reported as Harsha Bhogle vs. AO (2004) 87 TTJ (Mumbai) 892: (2003) 86 ITD 714(Mumbai). In the said order, the Tribunal has examined all the relevant aspects of the case and decided the issue against the assessee. The said order is under appeal before the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot include performers such as singers, actors, poets etc. or authors and playwright as they are separately covered by s. 80RR. The term artist has again to be distinguished from the term artiste . The term artiste , as a noun, refers to a professional entertainer, specially a singer or dancer including cabaret artistes. Singers, dancers including cabaret artistes are known as artistes and not as artists . It is for these reasons that we are in respectful agreement with the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case. Be whatever it may, the fact remains that we are bound to follow the decision taken by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case and therefore we follow the same. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently contended that we should follow the decision of this Tribunal in Amitabh Bachchan (supra). We are unable to do so in view of the categorical finding recorded by this Tribunal in Amitabh Bachchan's case that the facts in the assessee's case are clearly distinguishable to those in Amitabh Bachchan. It is therefore not open to us to take a contrary view and hold that the facts in the case under appeal are identical with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Tribunal on 22nd Nov., 2006 withdrawing the order constituting a Special Bench in the case of Star Ltd. Hong Kong and in particular to the following observations made therein : In my opinion, the assessee was not justified in asking the undersigned to constitute a Special Bench to consider the question which the Hon'ble High Court has already framed for consideration. In fact, information in respect of proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court was totally withheld. After the Hon'ble High Court had agreed to frame substantial question and decide them, application dt. 11th Aug., 2006 to constitute a Special Bench was moved before the undersigned in Delhi. Above facts as now placed before me by the Revenue, were important and relevant, should have been placed before me in the application to constitute the Special Bench. If situation like above is brought to the notice of the President, it is certain that President (unless there are strong reasons to do otherwise) would not constitute the Special Bench. The Tribunal as a body subordinate to the Hon'ble High Court has to take light and guidance and follow the directions of Hon'ble High Court under s. 260 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be charged unless there was a specific order to that effect by the AO. In the present ground of appeal also, the assessee has placed reliance on the decision in Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra) stating that the AO should not have charged the interest in the absence of a specific and clear direction in the assessment order. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that the availability of deduction under s. 80RR is quite debatable and controversial and therefore the assessee could not have foreseen and thereby estimated his current income in terms of s. 209(1) of the IT Act. According to him, his estimation of current income for the purpose of payment of advance tax was bona fide and therefore the AO ought not to have charged interest under ss. 234B and 234C of the IT Act. 17. The estimation of current income envisaged by s. 209(1) of the IT Act must be a bona fide estimate. In case of doubt, the assessee must be cautious and careful. The assessee cannot presume that he would automatically get the deduction under s. 80RR without fulfilling the requisite conditions. His plea in this behalf is therefore rejected. Levy of interest is mandatory and automatic upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
