1987 (10) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Cricket in India was returned by the assessee as his income liable to tax and there is no dispute about it in the present appeal. In the course of play of test matches, the spectators and cricket fans paid some presents to the Indian players in appreciation of their game both in Australia and in India. Such presents were received by the Board of Control for Cricket in foreign currency in Australia and in rupees in India and the same were distributed by the said Board to the players. The assessee received a sum of Rs. 28,541 as his share for the matches played in Australia and Rs. 6500 for the matches played in India. The total of such prize money received by the assessee thus amounted to Rs. 35,041. This amount was included by the ITO in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of K. Sankaran vs. CIT 1978 CTR (Ker) 311 : (1978) 115 ITR 561 (Ker) and certain observations made by the learned Authors of Kanga and Palkhivala, Law and Practice of Income tax, Vol. I at page 240, wherein it has been stated that voluntary gifts received in the exercise of a profession or vocation may be chargeable to tax even if it is casual and non-recurring in nature. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand fully supported the order of the lower appellate authority. It was submitted that the prize money received by the assessee was in the nature of a gift and did not constitute income in his hands and was therefore, not assessable. The facts found by the AAC in his impugned order were also reiterated before us in supp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hould have allowed deduction as per the Board's instruction No. 1432— F, No. 200/155/80-IT (AI) dt. 26th Nov., 1981. The AAC observing that the Board's instructions are binding on all officer subordinate to it held that the deduction should have been allowed when the ITO has treated the amount of Rs. 35,041 as income. However, since the AAC held that the aforesaid amount does not constitute income and directed deletion of the addition, the ground raised before him in the alternative, become redundant. The grievance raised by the assessee in his cross objection is that the AAC should have recorded a finding on the ground raised before him relating to the admissibility of the deduction from the total prize money. The cross objection is render .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X