Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
G.R. Viswanath vs Fifth Income-Tax Officer on 17 October, 1988
Equivalent citations: [1989]29ITD142(BANG)
ORDER
A.V. Balasubramanyam, Judicial Member
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the OIT (A), dated 9-12-1985, pertaining to assessment for the year 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 9-2-1986. The appellate had signed all the relevant papers on 20-1-1986 and entrusted the same to one R. Subramanyam, a clerk in the office of the counsel. The said clerk was dealing with the work of filing of the appeals. It seems he defaulted in his office work. The papers had not been filed before the authority. Subsequently the clerk left the office and thereafter the counsel realised about the lapse on his part in not presenting many appeals. The assessee's case is one such matter.
4. The affidavit of the counsel deserves to be accepted in the interest of justice. This Tribunal has condoned the delay in certain other appeals where the delay arose out of the same set of circumstances. Apart from the affidavit there is also the letter of the clerk which supports his explanation. We accept the 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 UAB. 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 Indian currency). These amounts "had been received abroad. The total amount repatriated to India was Rs. 4,75,000. This amount was claimed as not taxable. The Income-tax Officer refused the claim and brought it to charge. This was affirmed by the CIT (A) in appeal. The assessee is on further appeal to the Tribunal.
6. Sri S. Parthasarathy, appearing for the assessee, stated that the amounts were received by the assessee not on account of any professional activity, but were presents given in appreciation of Ms great qualities as a sportsman on and off the field. The certificate issued by the Chairman of the Cricketers Benefit Fund Series, UAE shows that "a purse of US f 44,820 was presented to the assessee in appreciation of his game and personal qualities. The Director of National Sports Training 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 Bank of India holding the post of an officer. Cricket was not for his living. It was stated at the bar that there is no professional cricket in India. The assessee obviously plays for love of cricket and because of his great talents he had been in the team that represented India for playing in Pakistan. These facts are fairly certain from the records.
8. A decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Navab Mohd. Mansur All Khan [1975] Tax. 40(6)-21 was cited wherein it is held that an award given as "best batsman" did not amount to any professional income. The CBDT has, in a Circular No. 447 [F. No. 199/86-IT(A-I)] dated 22-1-1986, clarified that awards received by a sportsman who is not a professional will not be liable to tax. As we have pointed out, cricket was not the profession 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 profession. Here, the assessee was a professional musician.
10. The case of the assessee before us is on a better footing. He is not a professional cricketer. The amounts were given to him by the admirers or lovers of cricket in token of their appreciation of the qualities possessed by the assessee as a cricketer. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 4,75,000 received abroad is not includible in the taxable income.
11. The appeal is allowed.