9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l filed by the assessee was dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in chronological manner may be summarized as that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 38,90,060/-. After being processed the same u/s 143(1) of the Act, assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and stated that due to bonafide mistake a sum of Rs. 30 lacs received as award from BCCI (Board of Cricket Control of India) which otherwise was exempted u/s 10(17A) of the Act with clarification vide circular no. 2/2014 issued by CBDT, was filed as taxable income as income from other sources. The Ld. AO rejected the claim / prayer of assessee vide order dated 31.10.2017 by stating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a well settled law that tax can be levied under the express provision of law and if any deduction or exemption is allowable to the assessee in law, then it is the duty upon the Assessing Officer to compute the income and allow such deduction under such express provision of the law. If the assessee claims that such an income is exempted u/s. 10(17A) which is duly supported by CBDT Circular which is binding on the Revenue Authorities, then the same needs to be exempted and allowed in accordance with law Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's claim in light of provisions of law and if such a claim is allowable in view of the CBDT Circular No. 2 of 2014 r.w.s. 10(17A), then same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the order passed by both lower authorities. 7. In the course of hearing, in support of his contention, the Ld. AR produced following orders: i. ITA No. 2685/D/2018 assessee vs. ITO ii. "Order dated 25.06.1979, 231 ITR 229 (Mad) CIT vs. JG Gopinath iii. Order dated 17.10.1988, 29 ITD 142 (Bang) GR Vishwanath vs. ITO iv. Order dated 28.08.2009, 128 ITD 59 (Chennai) ITO vs. Mariam Beevi v. Order dated 28.06.2013, 157 TTJ 886 (Del- Trib) ACIT vs. KapilDev vi. Order dated 26.07.2013, 28 ITR (T) 376 (Del-Trib.) AbhinavBindra vs. DCIT vii. Order dated 13.04.2018, ITA No. 1327/Mum/ 2016 ACIT vs. Sh. Sameer Sudhakar viii. Order dated 05.10.2018, ITA No. 104/Pun/2018 Mr. ChanrkantGulabraoBord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the qualities possessed by the assessee as a cricketer. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 4,75,000 received abroad is not includible in the taxable income." 7.3 In order dated 28.06.2013, 157 TTJ 886 (Del- Trib) ACIT vs. KapilDev, held that the assessee is entitled for exemption in respect of award money as per circular 447 dated 22.01.1986. The relevant extract of order reproduced as under: "3.4 Based on the opinion held by Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Sh. Ajay Jadeja wherein it is held that 'the assessee was entitled for exemption in respect of award money as per circular number 447 dated 22.01.1986', the same treatment is being done in the present case of Sh. Kapil Dev. Accordingly, the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 7.4 In Order dated 26.07.2013, 28 ITR (T) 376 (Del-Trib.) AbhinavBindra vs. DCIT, held that sportsman who is not a professional sportsman and has been given award, a liberal construction of circular no. 447 is required. The relevant extract of order reproduced as under: "14. Coming back to the facts of the assessee's case, Shri Abhinav Bindra is the first person in the history of independent India to have won the Olympic Gold Medal. In a country whose population is more than 100 crores, if a sportsman who is not a professional sportsman has won the gold medal for the first time after 60 years of independence of the country and he has been given the awards/rewards/prizes mainly by various Governments, local authorities, trusts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame 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 the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and we confirm the order of CIT(A). 7.6 In Order dated 05.10.2018, ITA No. 104/Pun/2018 Mr. ChanrkantGulabraoBorde vs. ITO, held that the recipient of award is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
