Bombay High Court
First Income Tax Officer vs Lata Mangeshkar. on 30 December, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1993)45TTJ(MUMBAI)28
ORDER
M. A. AJINKYA, A. M. :
This appeal by the Department is directed against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1984-85. The only ground raised is that the CIT(A) erred in directing the ITO to allow relief under S. 80RR on the full amount of Rs. 3,91,570 and holding that no portion of the expenditure incurred in India could be relatable to foreign receipts.
2. The Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of S. 80AB of the Act and argued that some portion of the expenses had to be allocated against S. 80RR receipts. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in CIT vs. P. K. Jhaveri (1990) 181 ITR 79 (SC) wherein the Court was dealing with S. 80K of the Act. He also relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in CIT vs. Anakapalli Co-operative Marketing Society (1989) 175 ITR 584 (AP) and Bombay High Court decision reported in CIT vs. Mercantile Bank Ltd. (1988) 169 ITR 44 (Bom).
3. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the income and expenditure account of the assessee and pointed out that the assessee was a well-known playback singer with world-wide reputation. The foreign income, which was accounted for in the income and expenditure statement, amounting to Rs. 3,50,385 was net income received by her against which not a single item of expenditure was incurred abroad in foreign exchange. These receipts were obtained from the concerts staged by her for which all the expenses of travelling as well as earnings from the concerts were made by the sponsors and no portion of the expenses for such concerts was required to be incurred by her.
4. Next, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the nature of the expenses stated in the income and expenditure themselves indicated that such expenses could not possibly be related to the income earned abroad on which S. 80RR claim was made. These expenses consisted of items like telephone charges, car maintenance, bank charges, salaries, stationery and printing and insurance, etc. The foreign income represented the net income received and deposited in the bank. The assessee received equivalent of 14,150 Australian dollars on 26th April, 1983 and deposited equivalent of that in terms of rupees 1,21,668. Similarly on 9th Nov., 1983, she received 9021 in pounds from Kim Ltd. (insurance brokers) for a programme organised in the U. K., the equivalent of which was Rs. 1,38,454. On 9th Feb., 1984, she received 5920 pounds equivalent of which was Rs. 90,262.
5. As regards expenses, all these expenses were incurred in India and no portion of the expenses were to be incurred for concerts organised abroad which fetched the aforementioned income. In a letter dt. 12th Feb., 1989, the assessee had clearly stated that air ticket was sent by the sponsors and all expenses for stay in foreign countries were also made by the sponsors. In the meanwhile, the appellant had given details of the tours mentioning the names of the sponsors of the tours in U. S. A., Fiji, Canada, London, etc.
6. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.
7. We have considered the submissions made on either side. We agree with the CIT(A) that there was no justification for treating any portion of the expenditure incurring in India as relatable to the receipts abroad. This is a case of a well-known artiste who went to various countries abroad, rendered musical concerts and earned foreign income. All such concerts were organised by her sponsors who met the expenses of organising the concerts abroad as well as the assessees travelling expenses. The nature of expenses incurred in India also does not give any indication to suggest that any such expenses could be adjusted against receipts on which S. 80RR is claimed. On scrutiny of the papers filed on record and after considering the submissions made, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and does not call for any interference. The same is hereby confirmed.
8. The appeal by the Department is dismissed.