TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) in pursuance of any award instituted in the public interest by the Central Government or any State Government or instituted by any other body and approved by the Central Government in this behalf; or (ii) as a reward by the Central Government or any State Government for such purposes as may be approved by the Central Government in this behalf in the public interest". 4. The assessee was specifically asked to state as to whether the award received by him fell within the aforesaid categories. The assessee replied that the award was not for any services rendered but was in the nature of a testimonial and expression of the recognition by an institution of the eminence of a person in the field of Journalism. 5. The aforesaid submissions did not find favour with the Assessing Officer who in rejecting the assessee's stand observed as under:-- "I am afraid the plea taken by the assessee is not tenable as the reward is directly connected with the assessee's performance in Journalism besides the reward does not fulfil condition specified under section 10(17A) of the I.T. Act which entitles the award to be exempt. The citation of award is reproduced below which clearly indicates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dation. It also cannot be inferred that the appellant was having an expectation of the award, much less to say that any regularity in receipt from the Foundation was even remotely probable. It is not every receipt that can be held chargeable to tax but in order to be so chargeable it must fall within the expression 'income' as contemplated in the I.T. Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I quite agree with the ld. AR that the receipt in question cannot be construed to partake the character of income and therefore the question whether it is taxable or exempt would not be relevant. To conclude this issue, therefore, I hold that the receipt cannot be construed to be an income component in the hands of the appellant and therefore its inclusion in the total income is not justified and the same is accordingly deleted from the total income as computed in the impugned order. The appellant will accordingly be entitled to a consequential relief of Rs. 1 lakh". 9. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and subsequent arguments advanced were a reiteration of the reasons records by the said Assessing Officer in rejecting the view point ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts have been furnished with reference to the B.D. Goenka Foundation as an institution, the nature of its activities, the past awardees and lastly the main submission was that the receipt in question has to first assume the character of an "income". 15. We may mention that in support of the various arguments advanced, the ld. counsel also referred to a legal opinion, copies thereof being placed at pages 14 to 16 of the paper book. We have taken this into account in deciding the present appeal. 16. In support of the various arguments advanced, the ld. counsel for the respondent relied on the same judgments as have been considered by the Assessing Officer and copies thereof were placed on the paper book. In Addition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 1. 17. In conclusion, the ld. counsel for the respondent urged that the view taken by the CIT(A) be confirmed. 18. In a short reply, the ld. DR argued that awards and rewards were covered by section 10(17A) and the assessee's case was also required to be examined on the touchstone of the said provision. On the ground that the award was not ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is quite categorical in stressing on "public interest" whether the award is instituted by the Central Government or a State Government and it cannot be an argument that the same "public interest" should be missing in an award instituted by a Non-government Organization. The present respondent has not been able to show to us as to which "public interest" is being catered to in the present award. 24. It may also be emphasized that section 10(17A) has two limbs -- the first dealing with 'awards' and the second with 'rewards' and in the latter a private body is completely excluded since it speaks only of payments in cash or kind by the Central Government or a State Government and that also "in public interest". 25. Coming to the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of C.P. Chitrarasu the assessee a member of a Political Party received gifts from friends and contributions by way of donations from others during public meetings connected with his birthday celebrations totalling Rs.48,176. These were utilized in the construction of a house which was handed over to him at a function got up for his birthday. 26. The ITO held that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
