Chandrakant Gulabrao Borde, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 13(1), Pune

ITA 104/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5162 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D Y PANDIT
• Keywords: Gift; Earning of tax free income; Tangible material; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 56; 28

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 MR. CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE, D.Y. PANDIT ADV. 1187/10, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE-411 005 PAN : AAPPB2873F /APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SMT. DEEPA KHARE & SHRI D.Y. PAN DIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHENDU DAS / DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.10.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-8, PUNE, DATED 23.10.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 BEING INITIATED IN ABSENCE OF M ATERIAL SHOWING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS VOID AND MAY KINDLY BE CANCELLED. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PURELY TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF EXCEPTION IN ABSENCE OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND TO MAKE ENQUIRIES BEING INVALID MAY KINDLY BE CANCELLED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.75,00,000/- UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEANED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN C ONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/-RECEIVED BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROFESSION UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1 961. ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 2 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT CIR CULAR NO.447 DATED JAN 22, 1986 WAS EFFECTIVE WHEN THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED, WHICH PROVIDED THAT IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WILL NOT BE LI ABLE TO TAX. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY OR SU BSTITUTE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2.1 ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND AND THE SAME READS AS U NDER: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT U/S.147 IS VALID IN LAW WHEN REASONS R ECORDED WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE OBJECT IONS WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE BE COME INVALID IN LAW FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY PROCEDURE AS LAID DOWN BY SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFT (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO 259 ITR 19. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND GOES TO THE MATTER MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTE D AND DECIDED ON MERITS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FORMER CRICKETER, WORKED WITH M/S.COOPER ENGINEERS LT D., CHINCHWAD. ASSESSEE REPORTED EARNING OF INCOME FROM HONORARIUM FROM BCCI, RENTAL INCOME, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAINS ETC. ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE WAS NEVER A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER AND HE WAS O NLY A SPORTSMAN. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE RECEIVED (1 ) RS.75 LAKHS FROM BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA (BCCI) AS ONE-TIME RE CEIPT (OTB)/AWARD AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR N O.447 OF 1986 DATED 22-01-1986; AND ALSO (2) RS.5 LAKHS FROM BARODA CRICK ET ASSOCIATION (BCA) AS OTB/AWARD IN RECOGNITION OF HIS ACHIEVEMENTS IN IND IAN CRICKET.OTB/AWARDS ARE GIVEN TO THE SPORT PERSONS/FORM ER PLAYERS/THEIR WIDOWS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS DECIDED BY THE WORKING CO MMITTEE OF THE BCCI/BCB. IT IS A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT AND IS PAID TO FACILITATE THE CONTR IBUTION OF PLAYERS OF THE PAST. THE SAME ARE NOT TAXABLE RECEIPT S. ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SAME, DURING THE YEAR, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A C RICKETER AND LEAVE ALONE, THE PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER. HE IS MERELY AN EX-CRICKETER OF INDIA . ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 3 ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME WAS ACC EPTED U./S.143(1A) OF THE ACT ON 27-10-2014. SUBSEQUENTLY, AO R ECORDED THE REASON FOR RE-OPENING OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT. THE REASO NS INDICATE THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE IS NEEDED TO VERIFY THE EXEMPT INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . EVENTUALLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.7 5 LAKHS AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA NOS. 4 AND 5 OF THE RE-ASSE SSMENT ORDER. IN THESE PARAGRAPHS, THE AO ANALYSED THE EMPLOYMENT STAT US OF THE ASSESSEE ON ONE SIDE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17 OF THE ACT, THE CB DT CIRCULAR AND THE BCCI PAYMENT DETAILS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(17A)(II) OF THE ACT, STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE SPORTSMAN VS. PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER ETC., ON THE OTHER. EVENTUALLY, VIDE THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA NO.7.1 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO DENIED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.10(17A)(II) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE PROCEED TO EXTRACT THE SAID PARA HERE AS UNDER : 7.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS I AM IN OPIN ION TO THAT, THIS CASE IS NOT FIT FOR THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(17A )(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXEMPTION OF RS.80,00,000/-. THE CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 10(17) OF THE ACT, PROVIDES FOR EXEMP TION IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENTS FOR T HE SPECIFIED PURPOSES IN PUBLIC INTEREST. RELEVANT PROVISIONS READ AS UNDER : (17A) ANY PAYMENT MADE, WHETHER IN CASH OR IN KIND,- (I) IN PURSUANCE OF ANY AWARD INSTITUTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY STATE GOVERNMENT OR INSTITU TED BY ANY OTHER BODY. AND APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN THIS BEHA LF; OR (II) AS A REWARD BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY S TATE GOVERNMENT FOR SUCH PURPOSES AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT IN THIS BEHALF IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST;] CBDT ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.02/2014 (F.NO.199/01/2014-ITA-I) U/S.10(17A) OF THE ACT AND ALSO CBDT CIRCULAR NO.447 (F.NO.199/1/86-IT (A -1) DATED 22-01-1986 AND THE SAME WAS CLARIFIED VIDE THE CIR CULAR NO.02/2014 ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 4 THAT AWARDS RECEIVED BY A SPORTSMAN, WHO IS NOT A PROFESSIO NAL, WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO TAX IN HIS HANDS AS THE AWARD WILL BE IN THE NATURE OF A GIFT AND/OR PERSONAL TESTIMONIAL. 4. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO NS ON THE MERITS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE GROUNDS/ADDITIONAL GROUNDS EXTRACTED ABO VE. 5. BEFORE US, ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RELATING TO VALIDITY O F REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR AT TENTION TO CERTAIN CASE LAWS AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE A O TO FURNISH THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.14 8 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE REASONS WERE N OT FURNISHED IN WRITING TO THE ASSESSEE THEREBY MAKING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS INVALID IN VIEW OF THE BINDING JUDGMENT. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE JUDG MENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 259 ITR 19. 6. IN RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE OF FURNISHING THE REASONS IN WRITING TO THE ASSESSEE, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED A LETTER DAT ED 27-06-2018 MENTIONED THAT THE FACT THAT THE REASONS WERE INDEED C OMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE TIME OF HEARING AND RELIED ON THE CON TENTS OF THE ORDER SHEET NOTING. LD. DR READ OUT THE RELEVANT LINES AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HERE AS UNDER: ISSUE NOTICE U/S.143(1) & 143(2) FOR A.Y. 2013-14. HEARING FIXED ON 25-8-2015 SD/- ITO SHRI D.Y. PANDIT, ADVOCATE, A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AT TEND ASK FOR REASON OF REOPENING OF THE CASE. I EXPLAINED TO HIM REASON O F THE CASE REOPENING, I.E . TO VERIFY EXEMPTED INCOME CLAIMED BY THE A IN HIS RE TURN OF INCOME. A.R. IS NOTED THIS REASON - NO OBJECTION FOR THE REASON . ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 5 FURTHER THE DETAILS ARE CALLED IN RESPECT OF THE EX EMPT INCOME CLAIMED WHICH IS RECEIVED TO HIM FOR BCCI & BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATI ON. THE CASE IS FIXED ON 15/9/2015. SD/- ITO 7. FURTHER, RESPONDING TO THE LD. DRS SUBMISSIONS AND T HE EVIDENCES, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION THE ADEQUACY OF THE REASONS AND MENTIONED THAT NOTICE U/S.148 R.W.S. 147 CANNOT BE I SSUED MERELY TO VERIFY EXEMPT INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON VARIOUS BINDING JUDGMENTS TO SUPPORT THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE ISSUED BY THE AO MERELY TO CONDUCT ROVING ENQUIRIES FOR DOING VERIFICATIONS ETC. WHICH BECOMES A CAUSE OF SURMISES AND THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT TO INVOKE SUCH PROVISIONS. 8. IN REPLY, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON TH E ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DURIN G THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HERE AS UNDER : 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IN THIS CASE ON 20 .06.2018 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VAL IDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING A CONTENTION THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE REOPENING WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE OBJECTIONS WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE A O. 3. IN THIS REGARD IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE A BOVE STATED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS PATENTLY WRONG AND IS IN CONTRADICTION TO THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE A REQUEST TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DA TED 19.08.2015 TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE REOPENING OF HIS CASE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 28.08.2015 DULY MADE HIM AWARE OF THE RE ASONS FOR REOPENING AND THE SAME WERE NOTED DOWN IN WRITING BY SH. D.Y. PANDIT, ADVOCATE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING ON 28.08.2015, THE AR AFTER NOTING DOWN THE REASON AND UNDERSTANDING THEM SUBMITTED HIS NO OBJECTION TO THE REASON RECORDED T O THE AO. THESE FACTS ARE DULY NOTED IN THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 28.08.2015, (DULY SIGNED BY THE AR AND THE AO).THE RELEVANT PART OF T HE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY IS REPRODUCED IN VERBATIM AS UNDER:- ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 6 28.08.2015 SHRI D.Y.PANDIT ADVOCATE, AR OF THE ASSE SSEE ATTENDED ASKED FOR THE REASONS OF THE REOPENING OF THE CASE. I EXPLAIN ED TO HIM REASONS OF THE REOPENING I.E. TO VERIFY THE EXEMPTED INCOME CLAIMED BY THE 'A' IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. AR HAS NOTED THIS REASONS AND NO OBJECTION FOR THE REASONS. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT ORDER SHEET IS ALSO E NCLOSED HEREWITH FOR THE KIND PERUSAL OF YOUR HONOURS. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IT IS PRAYED TH AT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED. 9. DURING REBUTTAL TIME, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT, ON MER ITS ALSO, THIS KIND OF RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPT FROM TAX AND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.447 OF 1986 DATED 22-01-1986 ON ONE SIDE AND VARIOUS BINDING AND OTHER JUDGMENTS ON THE OTHER. IN S UPPORT OF HIS CASE, LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : 1. ABHINAV BINDRA VS. DCIT (2013) 36 CCH 0310 (DELHI TRIB.) 2. CIT VS. PRITAM DAS NARANG (2015) 94 CCH 0014 (DELHI HIGH COURT) 3. CIT VS. BIGABASS MAHESHWARI SEWA SAMITI (2008) 220 CTR 369 4. BAKULBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL VS. ITO (2111) 79 CCH 0204 (GUJ . HIGH COURT) 5. CIT VS. BATRA (2008) 76 CCH 0918 (DELHI HIGH COURT) 6. DIT VS. M/S. S.R.M.B. DIARY FARMING (P) LTD. (SUPREME COURT) 7. ACIT VS. SAMEER SUDHAKAR DIGHE ITA NO.1327/MUM/2016 , DATED 13-04-2018 8. CIT VS. M.BALAMURALIKRISHNA 171 ITR 447 (MAD.) 9. G.R. VISHWANATH VS. ITO 29 ITD 142 (BANGALORE) 10. KAPIL DEV VS. ACIT ITA NO.4788/DEL./2003 AND CONNECTED APPEALS DATED 28-06-2013 11. CIT VS. M/S. GEMINI DISTILLIERS 398 ITR 343 (SC) 12. UTI AND ANOTHER VS. P.K. UNNY AND OTHERS 249 ITR 612 (BOM.) 10. REFERRING TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS LEGAL IN NATURE, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUN D RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION AS NO FRESH FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED AND ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC LTD. VS. CIT R EPORTED IN 229 ITR 383, THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA REPORT ED IN 187 ITR ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 7 688, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY COMPANY REPORTED IN 199 ITR 351. 11. ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE NARRATED AB OVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION BY VIRTUE OF BINDING DECISIONS ON THE SAME. 12. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS LIMITED ISSUE OF VA LIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF TH E REVENUE. TO START WITH, REGARDING FURNISHING OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO, WE FIND THERE IS EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE FACT OF COMMUNICATING THE RE ASONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAME. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO AND OTHERS (2002) SUPP(4) SCR 359 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: WE SEE NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE. HOWEVER, WE CLARIFY THAT WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ISSUED, THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE NOTI CEE IS TO FILE RETURN AND IF HE SO DESIRES, TO SEEK REASONS FOR ISSUING NOTICES. THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH REASONS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. ON RECEIPT OF REASONS, THE NOTICEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS THE REASONS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSE D IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DISPOSE O F THE OBJECTIONS, IF FILED, BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER BEFORE PROCEEDIN G WITH THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVESAID FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. INSOFAR AS THE APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF A SSESSMENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), WE DIRECT THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITY TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME, EXPEDITIOUSLY. FURTHER, IT IS A CASE THAT THE AFORESAID REASONS WERE AC CEPTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE USE OF IT FO R FILING FURTHER APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE OF FURNISHING OF REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE BE FORE REOPENING OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TH AT THIS PART OF THE ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 8 ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED . 13. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF ADEQUACY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S.148 R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT, WE FIND TH E AO IS ON RECORD IN STATING THAT HE ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO VERIFY EXEMPTED INCOME CLAIMED BY THE A IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE SAME WAS EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE CBDT CIRCULARS (SUPRA) WHICH INFACT ORDERS FOR EXEMPTION OF SUCH OTB-RECEIPTS IN CASES OF SPORTSMAN. AO DID NOT REFUTE TH E ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL. HE IS MERELY A SPORTSMAN . AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, MR. CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF COOPER ENGINEERS LTD. CHINCHWAD AND HENCE, HE CONSTITUTES SPORTSMAN ONLY . FURTHER, WE ALSO EXAMINED VARIOUS DECISIONS ON SIMILAR CASES RECEIVING AMOUNT S FROM THE BCCI AND FOUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE CONSIDERED EXEMPT AND NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGA RD, WE FIND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BIGABASS MAHESHWARI SEWA SAMITI, THE HONB LE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : 11. COMING TO QUESTION NO.1, A LOOK AT THE JUDGMEN T OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS, THAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS PROCEEDED ON TWO JUDG MENTS OF HON'BLE THE SUPREME COURT, BEING IN ITO & ORS. VS. LAKHMANI MEW ALDAS, REPORTED IN 103 ITR 437, AND GANGASHARAN & SONS VS. ITO & ORS, REPO RTED IN 130 ITR 1. IN LAKHMANI MEWALDAS'S CASE, IT HAS BEEN HELD, THAT TH E REASONS, WHICH LED TO THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF, CONTEMPLATED BY SEC.147(A) , MUST HAVE A MATERIAL BELIEF, ON THE QUESTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE, FROM ASSESSMENT, AND DOES NOT MEAN A PURELY SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION ON T HE PART OF THE ITO. WHERE LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ITO, AND THE B ELIEF HE WAS TO FORM REGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, IS MISSING, SUCH MA TERIAL WAS STATED TO BE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR FORMING BELIEF, AND SAME VIEW WAS TA KEN IN GANGASHARAN'S CASE. THEN, APPLYING THESE JUDGMENTS, IT HAS BEEN FOUND, BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR ISSUANCE O F NOTICE UNDER SEC.148, BEING UNDER-STATEMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT F ULFILLED. IT HAS BEEN HELD, THAT IN ORDER TO BRING AN ITEM WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC .147, IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE, BASED ON RELEVANT AND COGENT MATERIAL, THAT SUCH INCOME HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT HAS BEEN FOUND, THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL DIRECT OR IN DIRECT, AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH COULD SHOW, THAT THE RECEI PT OF DONATIONS, AMOUNTING TO RS.30,16,598, WAS WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF CORPUS FUND. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE RECEIPTS, AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED IN THE CORPUS FUND, COUPLED WITH THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD NOT INQUIRED INTO THE ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 9 NATURE OF THE RECEIPTS, BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SEC.148, AND IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO, THE AMOUNT WAS HELD TO BE RECEIVED IN THE COR PUS FUND. 12. IN OUR VIEW, THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY E XAMINED THE CONTROVERSY. IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE, THAT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL H AS FURTHER FOUND, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, SIMPLY TO VERIFY THE CONTENTS OF THE RETURN, UNLIKE BEFORE IT WAS VESTED IN HIM IN MAKING REGULAR ASSESSMENT. IT WAS FOUND, THAT THE TIME LIMIT AVAILABLE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) HAD EXPIRED, BUT THEN, ON THAT COUNT, HE CANNOT ASSUME THE JURISDICT ION BY VENTURING TO MAKE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.148. EVEN AFTER HEARING LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AT LENGTH, WE ARE SATISFIED, THAT THE REASONS, GIVEN B Y THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 13. ACCORDINGLY, QUESTION NO.1 IS ALSO ANSWERED AGA INST THE REVENUE. THE JUDGMENT IS CATEGORICAL IN STATING THAT THE AO IS BAR RED FROM ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S.148 OF THE ACT MERELY TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO FAILED TO SATISFY THE TEST OF ADEQUACY OF THE REASONS FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S.148 R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED ON THIS ASPECT OF ADEQUACY OF REASONS. 14. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE , WE FIND THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ABHINAV BINDRA VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : 13. THUS, SECTION 14 PROVIDES THE VARIOUS HEADS UN DER WHICH INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED AND ITEM NO.F WHICH IS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IS A RESIDUARY HEAD I.E. THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT ASSESSABLE UNDER ANY OF THE OTHER HEADS, VIZ., SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND GAINS FROM B USINESS OR PROFESSION AND CAPITAL GAINS IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. HOWEVER, FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14 AND THEREA FTER SECTION 56, WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE RECEIPT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. IN CIRCULAR NO.447, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED 'IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS CLARIFIED TH AT SUCH AWARDS IN THE CASES OF A SPORTSMAN, WHO IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL, WI LL NOT BE LIABLE TO TAX IN HIS HANDS AS IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF IN COME.'. THEREFORE, AS PER THE CIRCULAR, THE RECEIPT BY WAY OF AWARD BY A SPORTSMAN WHO IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN WILL NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), HE HAS DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE WO RDS 'REWARD' AND 'AWARD', OF COURSE WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 10(17A). WE HAV E ALREADY STATED THAT SECTION 10(17A) IS NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THE ABOVE CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE. WE FURTHER STATE THAT IF WE READ THE CIRCULAR AS A WHOLE , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CIRCULAR IS TO ENCOURAGE THE SPORTSMEN, ESPECIA LLY THOSE WHO ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMEN. 14. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE , SHRI ABHINAV BINDRA IS THE FIRST PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF INDEPENDENT INDIA TO HAVE WON THE OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL. IN A COUNTRY WHOSE POPULATION IS MORE THAN 1 00 CRORES, IF A SPORTSMAN WHO IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN HAS WON THE GOL D MEDAL FOR THE FIRST TIME ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 10 AFTER 60 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE COUNTRY AND H E HAS BEEN GIVEN THE AWARDS/REWARDS/PRIZES MAINLY BY VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS , LOCAL AUTHORITIES, TRUSTS AND INSTITUTIONS AND OF COURSE SOME CORPORAT E/INDIVIDUALS, A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF CIRCULAR NO.447 IS REQUIRED. CONSID ERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE NATURE AND SPIRIT OF CIRCULAR NO.447, WE HOLD T HAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., SHRI ABHINAV BINDRA, ALL THE REWARD S/PRIZES/GIFTS RECEIVED BY HIM ARE COVERED BY CIRCULAR NO.447 DATED 22ND JANUA RY, 1986 AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME IN HIS HANDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.63,10,601/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E ENHANCEMENT OF RS.2,34,00,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS DELE TED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SO LONG AS THE RECEIP T OF OTB/AWARD IS A SPORTSMAN, THE CIRCULAR NO.447 (SUPRA) PROVIDES EXEMPTION. 14.1 WE FIND THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI SAMEER SUDHAKAR DIGHE ITA NO.1327/MUM/2016 FOR THE A .Y. 2011-12 DATED 13-04-2018 DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND RELEVANT EXTRACTS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE FACTS AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLAYED NATIONAL AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL CRICKET. T HE ASSESSEE HAS PLAYED INTERNATIONAL TEST MATCHES NUMBERING 6 AND ODI'S NU MBERING 23.THE ASSESSEE IS FULL TIME EMPLOYEE OF AIR INDIA. THE BENEFIT MAT CH WAS CONDUCTED BY THE BCCI, WHICH IS A REGULATORY BODY FOR CRICKET IN INDIA TO APPRECIATE THE PERSONAL TALENT AND SKILL IN THIS SPORT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS A R ETIRE SPORTSMAN AND THE PROCEEDS ARISING OUT OF THIS BENEFIT MATCH IS IN TH E NATURE OF AWARD. THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE PAYMENT AND ASSESSEE'S PRO FESSION AND THESE RECEIPTS BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. T HIS VIEW OF OURS IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF G.R. VISWANATH VS. ITO (1989) 29 ITD 0142 OF BANGALORE BENCH, WHEREIN EXACTLY ON SIMILAR FACTS THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED VIDE PARA 7 TO 10 AS UNDER: '7. IT WAS ARGUED FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF HIS PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY AND T HAT THE SAME CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME. RECORDS SHOW THAT THE RE CEIPTS WERE NOT THE RESULT OF ANY PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY. HE IS A FULL-T IME 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 P ROFESSIONAL CRICKET IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE OBVIOUSLY PLAYS FOR LOVE OF CRI CKET AND BECAUSE OF HIS GREAT TALENTS HE HAD BEEN IN THE TEAM THAT REPRESEN TED INDIA FOR PLAYING IN PAKISTAN. THESE FACTS ARE FAIRLY CERTAIN FROM TH E 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 CITE D WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT AN AWARD GIVEN AS 'BEST BATSMAN' DID NOT AMOUN T 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 RE CEIVED 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. ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 11 9. IT MAY BE APPOSITE TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF T HE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. M.BALAMURALIKRISHNA [1988] 171 I TR 447 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM ADMIRERS AND FANS O F 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 NE XUS TO THE PROFESSION. HERE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A PROFESSIONAL M USICIAN. 10. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS ON A BETT ER FOOTING. HE IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETER. THE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN TO H IM 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.' 8. SIMILARLY, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF ABHINAV BINDRA VS. DCIT (2013) 28 ITR (TRIB) 0376 (DELHI) H AS CONSIDERED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE AMENDMENT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(V) OF THE ACT AND HELD AS UNDER:- '13. THUS, SECTION 14 PROVIDES THE VARIOUS HEADS UN DER WHICH INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED AND ITEM NO. F WHICH IS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' IS A RESIDUARY HEAD I.E. THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT ASSES SABLE UNDER ANY OF THE OTHER HEADS, VIZ., SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND CAPITAL GAINS IS TO BE A SSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. HOWEVER, FOR APPL ICABILITY OF SECTION 14 AND THEREAFTER SECTION 56, WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE RECEIPT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. IN CIRCULAR NO.447, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STA TED 'IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT SUCH AWARDS IN THE CASES OF A SPORTS MAN, WHO IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL, WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO TAX IN HIS HAND S AS IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME.' THEREFORE, AS PER THE CIRCULAR, THE RECEIPT BY WAY OF AWARD BY A SPORTSMAN WHO IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN WILL NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), HE HAS DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE WORDS 'REWARD' AND 'AWARD', OF COURSE WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 10(17A ). WE HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT SECTION 10(17A) IS NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THE AB OVE CIRCULAR IS APPLICABLE. WE FURTHER STATE THAT IF WE READ THE CIRCULAR AS A WHO LE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CIRCULAR IS TO ENCOURAGE THE SPORTSMEN, ESPE CIALLY THOSE WHO ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMEN. 14. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE , SHRI ABHINAV BINDRA IS THE FIRST PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF INDEPENDENT INDI A TO HAVE WON THE OLYMPIC GOLD MEDAL. IN A COUNTRY WHOSE POPULATION IS MORE T HAN 100 CRORES, IF A SPORTSMAN WHO IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN HAS W ON THE GOLD MEDAL FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER 60 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE CO UNTRY AND HE HAS BEEN GIVEN THE AWARDS/REWARDS/PRIZES MAINLY BY VARIOUS GOVERNM ENTS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, TRUSTS AND INSTITUTIONS AND OF COURSE SOME CORPORAT E/INDIVIDUALS, A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF CIRCULAR NO.447 IS REQUIRED. CONSID ERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE NATURE AND SPIRIT OF CIRCULAR NO.447, WE HOLD T HAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., SHRI ABHINAV BINDRA, ALL THE REWARD S/PRIZES/GIFTS RECEIVED BY HIM ARE COVERED BY CIRCULAR NO.447 DATED 22ND JANUA RY, 1986 AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME IN HIS HANDS. ACCOR DINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.63,10,601/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E ENHANCEMENT OF RS.2,34,00,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS DELE TED.' 9. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS APPLIED THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(A) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(A) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 12 '(VII) WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAM ILY RECEIVES, IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, FROM ANY PERSON OR PERSONS ON OR AFT ER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 5[BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 20 17],-- (A) ANY SUM OF MONEY, WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, THE AG GREGATE VALUE OF WHICH EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE WHOLE OF T HE AGGREGATE VALUE OF SUCH SUM;' 10. THE AO ASSESSED THE PROCEEDS OF BENEFIT MATCH O F THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 56(2)(VII)(A) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS BROUGHT IN THE STATUE BOOK WITH EFFECT FROM 01.10.2009. BUT WE FIND THAT THIS AMOUNT REPRE SENTS THE GRATITUDE FROM THE FANS AND FOLLOWERS BY ATTENDING THE BENEFIT MATCH C ONDUCTING IN HONOR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS A RETIRED CRICKETER OF INTERNATION AL REPUTE. THIS TYPE OF RECEIPTS HAS SPECIFICALLY BEEN EXEMPTED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 477 [F. NO. 199/86- IT(A-1)] DTD. 22.01.1986, WHICH STATES THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO AMATEUR SPORTSMAN WHO IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL WILL NOT BE LIA BLE TO TAX IN HIS HANDS AS IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME. T HE ASSESSEE WAS AN AMATEUR CRICKETER AND HIS PROFESSION IS EMPLOYMENT WITH AIR INDIA FROM WHERE HE IS GETTING SALARY. HE PLAYED THE GAME OF C RICKET FOR INDIA AS HIS PASSION AND THE RECEIPTS OF THE NET PROCEEDS FO R THE BENEFIT MATCH WAS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF APPRECIATION OF HIS PERSO NAL ACHIEVEMENTS AND TALENT AND THUS, CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(A) OF THE ACT. THIS PROCEEDS FROM BENEFIT MATCH RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IS IN APPRECIATION OF HIS PAST ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CRICKET ARENA AND SUCH TYPE OF RECEIP T CANNOT BE TAXED BECAUSE THESE TYPE OF RECEIPTS ARE SPECIFICALLY EXE MPTED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THE ADDITION AND WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLE IS OBVIOUS THAT, SO LONG AS THE REC IPIENT IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL AND THE AWARD/OTB IS NOT THE RECEIPT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL REASONS, AND IT IS RECEIVED IN THE CAPACITY OF A SPORTSMA N, THE OTB/REWARDS ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX IN VIEW OF THE CBDR CIRCULAR NO.447 (S UPRA). SIMILAR OTB/AWARDS ARE EXEMPTED IN THE CASE OF (1) SHRI ABHINAV BINDRA; (2) SHRI SAMEER SUDHAKAR DIGHE; AND (3) SHRI NAVAB MANSUR ALI KHAN PATAUDI (SUPRA) ETC., ON FACTS, THE SAID OTB/REWARDS ARE RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE WHO IS MERELY AN EX-CRICKETER AND NOT A PROFESSIONAL CRICKETE R. HE WAS MERELY A SPORTSMAN. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING OF FACT AND LAW EVOLVED IN OTHER CA SES, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND. AO DID NOT MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A PROFESSIONAL. CONSIDERING THE FAVOURABLE DECISIONS ON MERITS OF THE CASE TOO, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION OF CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE AO ITA NO.104/PUN/2018 CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE 13 NEEDS TO BE REVERSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS/ADDITION AL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 05 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 05 TH OCTOBER , 2018 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-8, PUNE. 4. / THE PR. CIT-4, PUNE. 5. , , / DR B, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.