Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1488 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - adequacy of reasons - addition of sum received Baroda Cricket Association under the head income from Profession under section 28 - Assessee reported earning of income from Honorarium from BCCI, rental income, income from other sources and capital gains etc. - Held that:- AO is on record in stating that he assumed jurisdiction “To verify exempted income claimed by the ‘A’ in his return of income.” The same was examined in the light of the CBDT Circulars (supra) which infact orders for exemption of such OTB-receipts in cases of sportsman. AO did not refute the assessee’s claim that he is not a professional. He is merely a sportsman. At the relevant point of time, Mr. Chandrakant Gulabrao Borde is an employee of Cooper Engineers Ltd. Chinchwad and hence, he constitutes sportsman only. Further, we also examined various decisions on similar cases receiving amounts from the BCCI and found that the said amounts were considered exempt and not to be included in the total income of the assessee. AO failed to satisfy the test of adequacy of the 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/additional ground raised by the assessee are allowed.
|