TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1983-84. 2. There is a preliminary issue to be considered and that has relation to limitation. There is admittedly a delay of 255 days in the presentation of the appeal. This has been explained by means of an affidavit sworn to by the counsel appearing for the assessee. 3. The appellate order had been served on the counsel on 11-12-1985. The appeal should have been filed on or before 9-2-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same and condone the delay. 5. The only ground in the appeal is in regard to taxability of certain amounts received by the assessee. The assessee is a cricketer who had represented India at matches played in UAE. On 5-3-1983 he had received US $ 44,820 (Rs. 4,50,000 converted into Indian currency) and US $ 1,894 from Pakistan Sports Board, Karachi on 3-2-1983 (corresponding to Rs. 25,000 in I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining and Coaching Centre, Karachi has certified that US $ 1,894 was paid by the President of Pakistan as an award. 7. It was argued for the revenue that the amounts are paid to the assessee because of his professional activity and that the same constitute taxable income. Records show that the receipts were not the result of any professional activity. He is a full-time employee with the State B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofession of the assessee, but only a vocation. 9. It may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. Balamuralikrishna [1988] 171 ITR 447 wherein it is held that amounts received from admirers and fans of a musician in appreciation of his services rendered as a musician are not his taxable income. It has been held that the payment has no nexus to the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
