9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons for assuming jurisdiction u/s.148 r.w.s.147 of the Act. Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed on this aspect of adequacy of reasons. On merits of case so long as the recipient is not a professional and the award/OTB is not the receipt for the professional reasons, and it is received in the capacity of a “Sportsman”, the OTB/rewards are exempt from tax in view of the CBDR Circular No.447 (supra). Similar OTB/awards are exempted in the case of (1) Shri Abhinav Bindra; (2) Shri Sameer Sudhakar Dighe; and (3) Shri Navab Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi (supra) etc., On facts, the said OTB/rewards are received by the assessee who is merely an ex-cricketer and not a professional cricketer. He was merely a sportsman. From the above finding of fact and law evolved in other cases, it is evident that the facts of the above case are identical to the facts of the present case on hand. AO did not make out a case that the assessee is a professional. Considering the favourable decisions on merits of the case too, we are of the opinion that the decision of CIT(A) upholding the addition made by the AO needs to be reversed. Accordingly, the grounds/add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.Cooper Engineers Ltd., Chinchwad. Assessee reported earning of income from Honorarium from BCCI, rental income, income from other sources and capital gains etc. Assessee claims that he was never a professional cricketer and he was only a sportsman. During the year under consideration, assessee received (1) ₹ 75 lakhs from Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as One-Time Receipt (OTB)/award and claimed the same as exempt in view of CBDT Circular No.447 of 1986 dated 22-01-1986; and also (2) ₹ 5 lakhs from Baroda Cricket Association (BCA) as OTB/award in recognition of his achievements in Indian Cricket.OTB/awards are given to the Sport persons/former players/their widows, as the case may be, as decided by the working committee of the BCCI/BCB. It is a voluntary payment and is paid to facilitate the contribution of players of the past. The same are not taxable receipts. Assessee received the same, during the year, when the assessee is not a cricketer and leave alone, the professional cricketer. He is merely an ex-cricketer of India. Assessee filed the return of income and the same was accepted u./s.143(1A) of the Act on 27-10-2014. Subsequently, AO recorded t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reassessment proceedings, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to certain case laws and submitted that assessee requested the AO to furnish the reasons recorded by the AO before issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. He submitted that this is a case where the reasons were not furnished in writing to the assessee thereby making the re-assessment proceedings invalid in view of the binding judgment. In this regard, Ld. Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 259 ITR 19. 6. In response to the issue of furnishing the reasons in writing to the assessee, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted a letter dated 27-06-2018 mentioned that the fact that the reasons were indeed communicated to the assessee during the time of hearing and relied on the contents of the order sheet noting. Ld. DR read out the relevant lines and the same are reproduced here as under: Issue notice u/s.143(1) 143(2) for A.Y. 2013-14. Hearing fixed on 25-8-2015 Sd/- ITO Shri D.Y. Pandit, Advocate, A.R. of the assessee attend ask for reason of reopening of the case. I explained to him reason of the case reopening, i.e . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is reproduced in verbatim as under:- 28.08.2015 Shri D.Y.Pandit Advocate, AR of the assessee attended asked for the reasons of the reopening of the case. I explained to him reasons of the reopening i.e. To verify the exempted income claimed by the 'A' in his return of income. AR has noted this reasons and no objection for the reasons. The photocopy of the relevant order sheet is also enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of your honours. 4. In view of the above submissions it is prayed that the additional ground taken by the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 9. During rebuttal time, Ld. Counsel submitted that, on merits also, this kind of receipts received by the assessee is exempt from tax and heavily relied on the CBDT Circular No.447 of 1986 dated 22-01-1986 on one side and various binding and other judgments on the other. In support of his case, Ld. Counsel relied on the following case laws : 1. Abhinav Bindra Vs. DCIT (2013) 36 CCH 0310 (Delhi Trib.) 2. CIT Vs. Pritam Das Narang (2015) 94 CCH 0014 (Delhi High Court) 3. CIT Vs. Bigabass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti (2008) 220 CTR 369 4. Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO (2111) 79 CCH 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking Order before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years. Insofar as the appeals filed against the order of assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals), we direct the appellate authority to dispose of the same, expeditiously. Further, it is a case that the aforesaid reasons were accepted by the Ld. AR of the assessee and the assessee did not make use of it for filing further appeal on this issue of furnishing of reasons to the assessee before reopening of the completed assessment. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this part of the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the assessee is unsustainable and therefore, the same are required to be dismissed . 13. Coming to the issue of adequacy of reasons recorded by the AO before assuming jurisdiction u/s.148 r.w.s.147 of the Act, we find the AO is on record in stating that he assumed jurisdiction To verify exempted income claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the corpus fund, coupled with the report of the auditor. The assessing officer had not inquired into the nature of the receipts, before issuing notice under Sec.148, and in earlier years also, the amount was held to be received in the corpus fund. 12. In our view, the learned Tribunal has rightly examined the controversy. It is significant to note, that the learned Tribunal has further found, that assessing officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings, simply to verify the contents of the return, unlike before it was vested in him in making regular assessment. It was found, that the time limit available for issuance of notice and making assessment under Sec.143(3) had expired, but then, on that count, he cannot assume the jurisdiction by venturing to make assessment under Sec.148. Even after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we are satisfied, that the reasons, given by the learned Tribunal, are in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, question No.1 is also answered against the revenue. The judgment is categorical in stating that the AO is barred from assuming jurisdiction u/s.148 of the Act merely to verify the claim of the assessee. Consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and the nature and spirit of Circular No.447, we hold that in the case of the assessee, viz., Shri Abhinav Bindra, all the rewards/prizes/gifts received by him are covered by Circular No.447 dated 22nd January, 1986 and, therefore, should not be treated as income in his hands. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 63,10,601/- made by the Assessing Officer and the enhancement of ₹ 2,34,00,000/- made by the learned CIT(A) is deleted. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. From the above, it is evident that so long as the receipt of OTB/award is a sportsman, the Circular No.447 (supra) provides exemption. 14.1 We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Sameer Sudhakar Dighe ITA No.1327/Mum/2016 for the A.Y. 2011-12 dated 13-04-2018 decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee and relevant extracts are reproduced as under : 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts available in public domain are that the assessee has played national as well as international cricket. The assessee has played international test matches numbering 6 and ODI's numberi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or lovers of cricket in token of their appreciation of the qualities possessed by the assessee as a cricketer. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the amount of ₹ 4,75,000 received abroad is not includible in the taxable income. 8. Similarly, the co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Abhinav Bindra vs. DCIT (2013) 28 ITR (Trib) 0376 (Delhi) has considered the identical issue and also considered the amendment provisions of section 56(2)(v) of the Act and held as under:- 13. Thus, Section 14 provides the various heads under which income has to be computed and Item No. F which is 'income from other sources' is a residuary head i.e. the income which is not assessable under any of the other heads, viz., salary, income from house property and gains from business or profession and capital gains is to be assessed under the head 'income from other sources'. However, for applicability of Section 14 and thereafter Section 56, what is required is the receipt in the nature of income. In Circular No.447, it has been clearly stated In view of this, it is clarified that such awards in the cases of a sportsman, who is not a professional, wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statue book with effect from 01.10.2009. But we find that this amount represents the gratitude from the fans and followers by attending the benefit match conducting in honor of the assessee, who is a retired cricketer of international repute. This type of receipts has specifically been exempted by the CBDT circular No. 477 [F. No. 199/86- IT(A-1)] dtd. 22.01.1986, which states that the amount paid to amateur sportsman who is not a professional will not be liable to tax in his hands as it would not be in the nature of income. The assessee was an amateur cricketer and his profession is employment with Air India from where he is getting salary. He played the game of cricket for India as his passion and the receipts of the net proceeds for the benefit match was only in the nature of appreciation of his personal achievements and talent and thus, cannot be brought to tax by invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act. This proceeds from benefit match received by assessee is in appreciation of his past achievements in the International Cricket arena and such type of receipt cannot be taxed because these type of receipts are specifically exempted. Accordingly, we are of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
