Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Smt. Madhu Sarin on 6 October, 2009
Author: Nirmaljit Kaur
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Nirmaljit Kaur
I.T. Appeal No.195 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
I.T. Appeal No.195 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.10.2009
The Commissioner of Income tax-I
Chandigarh
....Appellant
Versus
Smt. Madhu Sarin,
H.No.48, Sector-4,
Chandigarh.
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate
for the appellant.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
C.M. No.5349-CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 515 days in re-filing the appeal.
For the reasons recorded in the application, the C.M. is allowed and the delay of 515 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. I.T. Appeal No.195 of 2009
This is an appeal against the order dated 28-02-2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, vide which, the appeal of the assessee was allowed. I.T. Appeal No.195 of 2009 (O&M) 2
The main issue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was that the Income Tax Authorities denied the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80RR of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as `the Act'). The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had earned her foreign remittances in the role of a research collaborator, consultant and lecturer to participate in the international conference and as a research analyst. As such, the Assessing Officer did not treat the assessee as an `author' and held that the assessee's role being of a research collaborator and consultant, the foreign remittance received by her was not out of an exercise of the profession listed in Section 80RR(1) of the Act.
While challenging the said order in the present appeal, the following question of law is raised :-
" Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not distinguishing the role and work of an author vis-a-vis that of a research collaborator & consultant, thus, wrongly directing that deduction u/s 80RR be allowed to the assessee, where such relief is not due?"
Thus, the only question that requires to be determined was as to whether the subject foreign remittance is derived from the assessee's alleged exercise of profession as an `author' or not, in order to enable her to get deduction under Section 80RR. The Tribunal, after taking into account the material on record, returned a finding that the remuneration so earned, was on account of her work as an `author' and recorded as follows:-
" XXX XXX XXX
16. In other words, an author is referred to a person who produces a written composition as a original creator in contrast to a translator or an editor or a I.T. Appeal No.195 of 2009 (O&M) 3 compiler. But where a work is produced or composed by one's own intellectual labor such a person is referred to as an author. In the instant case, with reference to the contract with CIFOR, the assessee is expected to `produce' a paper as well as a publication. Therefore, to say that the assessee was called upon to render only research services is a misnomer. In fact, it is abundantly clear that the research work assigned to the assessee was only meant to enable the assessee to produce the publication as referred to in clauses (5), (6) & (7) of the contract referred to above. The assessee was contracted to produce on the basis of the research and her own intellect a written work in the form of a publication which has indeed been done by the assessee. It is not wrong on the part of the assessee to contend that it was her professional skills as an author which prompted CIFOR to engage her. The answer is clearly in support of the position canvassed by the assessee. No doubt, carrying out of research or assisting in the conduct of research are not the attributes of an `author' so however where carrying out or assisting in the conduct of is to facilitate and ultimately produce a product in the form of a publication, it certainly denotes that the person in question exercised her skill as an author. In the instant case, merely because the contract with CIFOR involved a conduct of research, the same cannot distract from the fact that what was ultimately produced was work of an author. It is also pertinent to note that in the past too the assessee has authored Books, one published in UK by MANSELL Publishing Ltd. And other in India by Edutek, CEE Ahemedabad. The assessee also has authored two manuals for Swedish International Development Agency and several papers for International Institutions. The aforesaid facts have been noted by the lower authorities and are also a part of the written submissions dated 27-12-2001 addressed to the Assessing Officer, which are placed at page 9 of the I.T. Appeal No.195 of 2009 (O&M) 4 paper book. Moreover, the assessee also brought to the notice of the lower authorities that her work as an author has also been noticed by the Chandigarh Administration, which emerges from the written submissions dated 27-02-2002 addressed to the Assessing Officer placed in the Paper Book at Page 75. We have perused the material on record and are satisfied that it is safe to infer that in so far as the assessee is concerned, her being an author and that too a professional author is an undisputed factual position. Therefore, the same cannot be disregarded while viewing the contract with CIFOR. Thus, the plea of the assessee that it was her professional skill of an author that was the reason for CIFOR to enter into contract with her cannot be ignored. We, therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion and the material on record, are satisfied that the assessee can be said to have exercised her profession as an author in discharging her role in the contract with CIFOR. Therefore, the assessee can be said to have earned income therefrom which qualify to be termed as income derived by her in the exercise of her profession as an author thereby qualifying for the benefits under section 80RR of the Act."
It is, therefore, apparent from the above that the finding has been duly recorded on the basis of the discussion and material on record that the assessee earned income which qualify to be termed as income derived by her in the exercise of her profession as an author thereby qualifying for the benefits under Section 80RR of the Act.
The finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal is, therefore, a possible view and the same cannot be held to give rise to substantial question of law just because another view point may be possible. No I.T. Appeal No.195 of 2009 (O&M) 5 substantial question of law arises.
The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 06.10.2009 gurpreet