TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of 2nd proviso (g) to the said section. CIT(A) alternatively held that the amount is also taxable u/s 28(iv) - In the instant case, prima facie, the CIT(A) has not undertaken such an exercise. Moreover, it is settled position of law that for section 28(iv) to attract, the business or profession must have been carried on by the assessee at any time during the previous year (emphasis supplied). CIT(A) in the impugned order has stated that assessee was rendering services to BCCI during the year under consideration, however, he has not elaborated how assessee was rendering services to BCCI during the relevant assessment year. The assessee was paid ₹ 60 lakh as an ex gratia amount for having played cricket for his country - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of ₹ 24,41,890. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 21.03.2016 by determining the total income at ₹ 96,03,433. One of the additions made by the Assessing Officer was a sum of ₹ 60 lakh being onetime benefit received from BCCI. The assessee, in the return of income, has claimed the same as a capital receipt and not liable to be taxed. The A.O. held that ₹ 60 lakh is liable to be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii) of the I.T.Act since BCCI did not have the registration u/s 12A of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding by the A.O. in bringing to tax the sum of ₹ 60 lakh, reads as follows:- However as per section 56(2)(v) under sub clause (g), `this clause shall not apply to any sum of mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said that BCCI was still being held to be eligible to the benefit of Section 11 of the Act and that its registration under Section 12AA was still in existence. So the benefit of proviso (g) to Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is not available to the appellant. 5.4 Without prejudice to above, another important aspect which needs to be noted is that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act get attracted if the amount is received without any consideration. However, this is not so in the case under consideration. The amount of ₹ 60,00,000/- was received by the appellant from BCCI as onetime benefit as the appellant was a cricketer and he had provided services to BCCI in earlier years. The criteria fixed for the benefit was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 28(iv) of the Act, the learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) did not give adequate notice before rendering such a finding. It was submitted that the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act would not apply when the sum of ₹ 60 lakh was a capital receipt. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited reported in 404 ITR 1 (SC) and order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Peethadhipati Trust in ITA No.1382 and 1535/Bang/2010 (order dated 03.01.2012). 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g) to the said section. 7.2 The CIT(A) alternatively held that the amount of ₹ 60 lakh is also taxable u/s 28(iv) of the I.T.Act. The reasoning of CIT(A) for holding so is at para 5.4 of the impugned order. As mentioned earlier, the A.O. held that receipt of ₹ 60 lakh is liable to be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii) of the I.T.Act when CIT(A) wants to tax ₹ 60 lakh also u/s 28(iv) of the I.T.Act, he ought to put the assessee on notice and called for his explanation as to why the said sum of ₹ 60 lakh cannot be brought to tax u/s 28(iv) of the I.T.Act. In the instant case, prima facie, the CIT(A) has not undertaken such an exercise. Moreover, it is settled position of law that for section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act to attract, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
