Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
PER BENCH This bunch of six appeals consists of two sets of cross appeals arising out of two separate orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–32, Mumbai, pertaining to assessment years 1999–2000
3 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
and 2000–01. Besides these appeals, there are two more appeals by the assessee arising out of order giving effect to passed by the Assessing Officer while implementing the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years.
Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues, for the sake of convenience, these appeal are heard the disposed of by way of this consolidated order:–
ITA no.1443/Mum./2005 Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 1999–2000
The only issue arising out of the aforesaid apepal by the Revenue is in relation to the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”).
Brief facts are, the assessee a registered charitable institution has been granted registration under section 12A of the Act. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 26th November 1999, declaring nil income after claiming exemption under section 10(23) of the Act. Without prejudice, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(23) of the Act. Further, as
4 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
regards assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, on verifying the accounts and other details filed by the assessee he found that the assessee has claimed various expenditures. After calling for necessary details and verifying them, the Assessing Officer found that the travelling expenses of office bearers amounting to` 8,93,990, have not been spent towards the object of the Trust, hence, he disallowed the said expenditure. As regards travelling expenditure of ` 70,83,062, incurred for persons other than office bearers, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of ` 40 lakh stating that in the absence of proper documentary evidence, genuineness of claim of expenditure could not be verified. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown expenditure incurred of ` 7,88,750 towards purchase of tickets for different international matches. He found that the tickets purchased were offered to the President, Treasurer, Jt. Secretary, Vice President and Former President of BCCI. He observed that the total number of tickets purchased and the category to which the tickets belong as well as the name of persons or officials to whom the tickets were given on complementary basis are not available. Accordingly, he disallowed the expenditure incurred towards purchase of tickets. Further, he found that the assessee has claimed deduction of an amount of ` 9,55,056, on account of foreign visit of officials of BCCI. From the details furnished, the Assessing Officer found that an expenditure of US $ 2,100 was incurred for six days visit to Sharjah by
5 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
Shri Kishore Rungta. It is alleged by the Assessing Officer, the break–up of expenses and the reason for incurring such expenditure was not furnished by the assessee. Similarly, expenditure of ` 1,38,000, was incurred towards attendance of ICC meetings by Shri J.Y. Lele. As observed bythe Assessing Officer, the assessee did not furnish the details regarding incurring of such expenditure. He further found that U.S. $ 2,000 was spent for the visit of Shri Rajsingh Dungarpur, to New Zeeland for attending ICC meeting but no details were furnished by the assessee. Similarly, an amount of U.S. $ 3000 was spent for the visit of Shri S.K. Nair, to Sharjah, however, no details were furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed, though similar expenditure was incurred for foreign visit of Shri S. Divakar, Shri Jyoti Vajpayee and Shri Harbhajan Singh, however, proper details were not filed by the assessee. Accordingly, out of the total expenditure incurred of ` 9,55,066 on foreign travel, the Assessing Officer disallowed 50% amounting to ` 4,77,533, stating that such expenditure was not incurred for the object of the trust. Further, the Assessing Officer disallowed entertainment expenditure of ` 98,473, alleging that they were not spent for carrying out the object of the trust. In addition to the above, the Assessing Officer also disallowed ` 5,18,884, being 30% of the total telephone expenses of ` 17,29,617, stating that these expenditures were incurred towards cellular phone charges of many officials of the BCCI a part of which may be for personal use of the
6 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
concerned officials. Having disallowed a part of the expenditure claimed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer also proceeded to deny assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act alleging that income / fund were not applied towards the object of the Trust. Challenging the disallowances made as well as denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). In the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee advanced detailed argument not only in support of expenditure claimed but also contesting the denial of claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act.
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of submissions made by the assessee and the material placed before him, called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. After considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer in the context of submissions made by the assessee as well as facts and material on record, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that as regards travelling expenditure, the Assessing Officer has made adverse comment with regard to Shri P.M. Rungta’s visit to New Delhi. Accordingly, he sustained the disallowance of travelling expenditure of office bearers to that extent only. As regards the disallowance of ` 40 lakh on account of travelling expenditure of persons other than the office bearers, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the
7 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
facts and material on record as well as the remand report found that in course of remand proceedings, the assessee had furnished detailed month–wise statement of T.A. / D.A. paid and reimbursed to various cricket team. He also found that every details of the expenditure incurred were also furnished before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings as well as in course of remand. He observed that the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the entire expenditure was not wholly and exclusively for the promotion of games and sports is without any basis. He observed that since the Assessing Officer has not expressed any doubt regarding genuineness of expenses, part disallowance of expenditure is improper. Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance of ` 40 lakh. As regards expenditure incurred for purchase of tickets, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the remand report as well as other facts and material on record, though, accepted the fact that the assessee has to distribute tickets to various persons not only for smooth functioning of its core operation but also for popularizing the game of cricket amongst VIPs however, he was of the view that the assessee had not been able to justify the allowability of expenditure fully by furnishing required details. Accordingly, he restricted the disallowance to 50% of the expenditure claimed. As regards foreign travel expenses, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the facts and material on record, observed that since there was a definite purpose for the foreign
8 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
visits of the persons towards which the expenditure was claimed, therefore, assessee’s claim cannot be rejected in entirety. However, he observed that the assessee could not establish that the entire period of travel of the concerned persons was devoted to the conduct of assessee’s business. Accordingly, he disallowed an amount of ` 2 lakh out of the total foreign travel expenses of ` 4.77 lakh. As regards the claim regarding entertainment expenses, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance with the observation that the assessee could not establish that it was for carrying out the charitable objects. As regards telephone expenses, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) following his earlier orders on the issue, deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Having held so, the next issue which came up for consideration of learned Commissioner (Appeals) was whether by virtue of the disallowance of expenditure sustained by him, assessee’s claim of expenditure of section 11 of the Act can be rejected. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after referring to the provisions of section 11 of the Act, as well as certain judicial precedents held that only the income which is not applied to charitable purposes in India is not covered by section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, he held that the income to the extent applied towards achieving charitable object of the trust is eligible for exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. While doing so, he observed that assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act can be
9 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
denied only under the circumstances enumerated in section 13 of the Act. He observed, since, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has breached any of the conditions laid down under section 13 or under section 12 of the Act, assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act cannot be denied. Thus, he allowed assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act to the extent of income applied towards charitable objects.
The learned Departmental Representative relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer as well as grounds raised, submitted that as per the provisions of section 11 of the Act assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act is allowable if the income is applied wholly and exclusively for carrying out the objects of the trust. He submitted, disallowance of part of expenditure is suggestive of the fact that a part of the income was not applied for carrying out the object of the trust. Therefore, the assessee is disqualified from availing exemption under section 11 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:–
i) DIT v/s Bharat Diamond Bourse(2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC); and ii) Agappa Child Centre v/s CIT, [1997] 226 ITR 221 (Ker.);
The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee drawing our attention to the provisions of section 11 of the Act submitted, sub–section (1) of
10 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
section 11 of the Act makes it clear that the income to the extent applied for charitable or religious purposes or set apart for application to such purposes in India is eligible for exemption. Thus, he submitted, the income to the extent applied by the assessee towards charitable purposes is allowable as exemption irrespective of the fact whether a part of the expenditure has been disallowed. He submitted, claim of exemption under section 11 can be denied only to the extent of expenditure disallowed. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted, up to assessment year 1998–99, the assessee was notified to avail exemption under section 10(23) of the Act. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted, a trust incurs two kinds of expenditure i.e., administrative expenditure and expenditure for charitable purpose. He submitted, the object of the assessee is promotion of cricket in India which has been recognised as charitable purpose. Extensively referring to the statement of fact forming part of appeal memo filed before the first appellate authority, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that each of the expenditure incurred by the assessee is for the purpose of promoting its objects. Explaining the expenditure incurred under each of the head, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that Shri P.M. Rungta has gone to Delhi to meet Revenue officials in connection with the renewal application filed under section 10(23) of the Act. He submitted that Shri Rungta was a former treasurer and was not an office bearer of the
11 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
assessee at the time of his visit to Delhi. He submitted that these are normal expenditures which have to be incurred for the purpose of the trust. He submitted that as per the provisions of section 11(1)(a) of the Act, income of the assessee has to be applied and not the receipts. He submitted, even assuming that a part of the income was not applied towards charitable purpose, still exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act cannot be disallowed fully but assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, has to be disallowed in respect of the expenditure disallowed. He submitted, there cannot be a blanket disallowance of exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act, as the assessee has fulfilled the conditions of section 11 of the Act. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of exemption allowable under section 11 of the Act. He submitted, when there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has violated any of the conditions of section 13 or section 12 of the Act, assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act deserves to be allowed. The learned Sr. Counsel submitted, under identical facts and circumstances, though, assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act was allowed by the first appellate authority in assessment year 2001–02, however, the Department has not preferred any appeal before the Tribunal challenging the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of allowance of
12 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act. The learned Sr. Counsel in support of his contention relied upon the following decisions:–
i) DIT v/s Seth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust, [2001] 249 ITR 533 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions, [2014] 363 ITR 230 (Kar.); iii) The Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council v/s ITO, ITA no.1572/Bom./1989, dated 03.10.1997; and iv) Audyogik Shikshan Mandal v/s ITO, [2016] 156 ITD 001 (Pn.) (TM).
We have patiently and carefully heard rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. Undisputedly, the grievance of the Department is confined to allowance of assessee’s claim of deduction in the face of disallowance of part of the expenditure claimed by the assessee. It is made clear, the Department has not challenged on merits the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting certain disallowances. Be that as it may, the issue for consideration before us is, whether by virtue of disallowance of part of expenditure claimed by the assessee, it loses its right to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act completely. Admittedly, in the relevant assessment year, assessee was registered under section 12A of the Act. Therefore, the primary condition for availing exemption under section 11 of the Act
13 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
was fulfilled. The next issue is, whether by disallowance of a part of expenditure, claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act can be disallowed on its entirety. In this context, it is necessary to examine the provisions of section 11 of the Act. A reading of section 11(1)(a) of the Act makes it clear that exemption under section 11 of the Act is allowable to the extent of income derived from property held for charitable or religious purposes is applied for charitable for religious purposes. Thus, as per the ordinary and plain meaning of the aforesaid provision, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption of income to the extent it is applied for charitable purpose. Of–course, the provisions of section 11 is subject to the conditions / exceptions provided under section 13 of the Act. However, in the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has violated any of the conditions of section 13 of the Act. That being the case, the contention of learned Departmental Representative that assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act has to be disallowed entirely is not acceptable. Thus, in this regard, we agree with the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Having held so, it is now necessary for us to deal with the decisions relied upon by both the parties. In case of Bharat Diamond Bourse (supra), there is specific allegation by the Department that the assessee has advanced loan of ` 70 lakh to the founder of the institution, thereby, violating provision of
14 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
section 13 of the Act. However, there is no such fact involved in the case of the assessee. Similarly, in case of Agappa Child Centre (supra), there is specific allegation of violation of section 13(2)(b) of the Act which is absent in the case of the assessee. Whereas, in case of Seth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that only the non–exempt income by virtue of contravention of section 13(1)(d) of the Act is exigible to tax at the maximum marginal rate. In case of Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act will not lead to denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act on the total income of the assessee. It is relevant to observe, in case of Audyogik Shikshan Mandal (supra), the learned Third Member of Pune Bench of the Tribunal after taking note of the judgment in case of Agappa Child Centre (supra) and Bharat Diamond Bourse (supra), which were cited before us by the learned Departmental Representative, has proceeded to hold that the denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act should be limited to the amount disallowed under section 13(2)(b) of the Act. While doing so, the learned Third Member followed the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Fr. Mullers Charitalble Institutions (supra) which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also relevant to observe that the learned Departmental
15 The Board of Control for Cricket in India Representative has submitted a letter dated 4th December 2015, of the Assessing Officer, wherein, it is clearly stated that the department has accepted the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act in assessment year 2001–02. Thus, on overall consideration of facts and material on record, we are of the view that assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act is allowable to the extent assessee has applied such income for charitable purposes. In that view of the matter, we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue by dismissing the grounds raised.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
ITA no.9272/Mum./2004 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 1999–2000
In ground no.1, the assessee has raised the issue of claim of exemption under section 10(23) of the Act.
Brief facts are, as discussed earlier, the assessee was allowed exemption under section 10(23) of the Act till assessment year 1998– 99. For the impugned assessment year also, though, the assessee had filed an application for issuance of notification under section 10(23) of the Act, however, assessee’s application remained un–disposed. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while
16 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
examining assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(23) of the Act, observed that the assessee has not fulfilled any of the conditions of the said provision. Accordingly, he rejected assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(23) of the Act. The assessee challenged the aforesaid decision before the first appellate authority.
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) noticing that assessee’s application for issuance of notification under section 10(23) of the Act is still pending before the appropriate authority, held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making adverse comment with regard to assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(23) of the Act.
The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted, assessee’s application for issuance of notification under section 10(23) of the Act for the impugned assessment year is still pending before the appropriate authority. Thus, he submitted, a direction may be given to the Assessing Officer to allow exemption under section 10(23) of the Act in case a notification under section 10(23) of the Act is issued in favour of the assessee. On a query from the Bench the learned Departmental Representative expressed his inability to say anything on the present status of assessee’s application for issuance of notification under section 10(23) of the Act.
17 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
Having considered rival submissions and perused the material on record, it appears that the assessee’s application for issuance of notification under section 10(23) of the Act for the impugned assessment year is still pending before the appropriate authority. At least, till date the assessee has not received any communication from the Department intimating the fate of its application for grant of notification under section 10(23) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(23) of the Act in case a notification under section 10(23) of the Act is issued for the impugned assessment year by the appropriate authority. However, the claim of exemption under the aforesaid provision will be available to the assessee subject to fulfillment of all the conditions of section 10(23) of the Act. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged part disallowance out of travel expenditure of Shri P.M. Rungta, towards his visit to Delhi.
As discussed earlier, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed travel expenses in respect of office bearers and persons other than the office bearer called upon the assessee to furnish the necessary details. After
18 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
considering the material available on record as well as submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer since was not satisfied, he disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, on the basis of submissions made and evidences produced, a remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer. After perusing the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that all the details along with corresponding invoices and vouchers in respect of visit of Shri P.M. Rungta, to Delhi, could not be furnished by the assessee even at the stage of remand. Accordingly, he disallowed an amount of ` 1,44,690, representing travel expenses of Shri P.M. Rungta.
The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee refuting the allegations of the Departmental Authorities submitted that all the details / evidences relating to Shri P.M. Rungta’s visit to Delhi were submitted before the Assessing Officer. He submitted, Shri Rungta, was an office bearer earlier and not in the impugned assessment year. He submitted, Shri Rungta was sent to Delhi for the specific purpose of pursuing assessee’s application made under section 10(23) of the Act before the CBDT. In this context, he drew our attention to the facts narrated in the statement of facts filed before the learned
19 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, he submitted, the disallowance of expenditure is not justified.
The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, before the Assessing Officer, though, the assessee stated that Shri P.M. Rungta, has gone to Delhi to pursue the application filed under section 10(23) of the Act before the CBDT, however, no evidence was produced. During the remand proceedings, though, the assessee produced some evidence, however, as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the remand report, no invoice was produced in respect of reimbursement of three air tickets for journey made on 3rd September 1998.The Assessing Officer has also mentioned that in addition to T.A./D.A. bill for ` 61,560, along with air fare charges, Shri P.M. Rungta has claimed hotel bill for ` 16,260, as well as enroute halts and entertainment and transport charges. Similar claim was made for journey undertaken during the period from 17th September 1998 and 1st September 1998. Thus, from the aforesaid observations of the Assessing Officer, it is clear that the assessee has failed to justify the expenditure claimed. In view of the aforesaid, we uphold the disallowance.
20 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged 50% disallowance out of expenditure claimed towards purchase of tickets.
Brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed expenditure of ` 7,88,750, on account of purchase of ticket for different international matches called upon the assessee to justify the claim. In response, it was submitted by the assessee that to popularise the game of cricket amongst VIPs as well as for smooth conduct of its activities, the assessee had to provide tickets on complementary basis to office bearers and VIPs. The Assessing Officer, however, did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and disallowed the expenditure.
The learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, sustained the disallowance @ 50% of the amount claimed.
The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per general practice, the assessee has to provide tickets on complementary basis to various persons including office bearers of Cricket Associations, VIPs, etc. He submitted, sinceinternational matches are conducted by the respective state cricket associations, the assessee had to purchase tickets from the said cricket associations
21 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
for distribution purpose. Thus, he submitted, the expenditure claimed is allowable.
The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As seen from the remand report, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee had furnished a statement showing the denomination of tickets purchased with supporting evidence. However, the Assessing Officer had observed that the name of persons of officials whom the tickets were given were not furnished. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, was of the view that looking at the wide range of assessee’s operation, a very small amount had been spent for purchase of tickets, however, he has disallowed 50% out of the expenditure claimed. Thus, when in the course of remand proceedings, the assessee furnished the details of tickets purchased with supporting evidence and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also given a factual finding that the amount spent by the assessee for purchase of tickets is very small having regard to the operations of the assessee, in our view, the expenditure claimed by the assessee should be allowed in full. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
22 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
In ground no.4, the assessee has challenged confirmation of disallowance of ` 2 lakh out of foreign travel expenses.
As could be seen from the facts on record, the Assessing Officer disallowed 50% out of the foreign travel expenses on the reasoning that the assessee failed to establish that the purpose of visit of various persons in respect of which the expenditure was incurred was for the purpose of ICC meeting. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the disallowance to ` 2 lakh.
We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen from the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), after perusing the material on record, he was convinced that there was a definite purpose for which all the foreign visits were undertaken by the concerned persons. In view of such finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), there is no need for ad–hoc disallowance of ` 2 lakh out of the expenditure claimed. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance made.
In ground no.5, the assessee has challenged disallowance of entertainment expenses of ` 98,470.
Brief facts are, in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the aforesaid expenditure, as per
23 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
assessee’s explanation, was incurred for wine, food and gift for government officials and other persons, disallowed it on the reasoning that it was not spent for the object of the trust.
The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also sustained the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen, as per assessee’s own admission, these expenses were incurred towards food, wine and gift for Government officials and other persons. The assessee has not furnished any evidence in support of such expenditure. Even, by very nature the expenditure claimed, in our view, is not allowable. Accordingly, we uphold the disallowance made by the Departmental Authorities.
In ground no.6, the assessee has sought a direction to the Assessing Officer to extend the benefit of section 11(2) of the Act with regard to the additions / disallowances confirmed by the appellate authority.
We have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. On a perusal of the facts on record, it is seen that the Assessing Officer did not consider assessee’s claim under section 11(2) of the Act since he rejected assessee’s claim of exemption under
24 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
section 11 of the Act. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act if the assessee has claimed such benefit in the prescribed manner. In view of the aforesaid direction, we do not find the need for any further direction to the Assessing Officer. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer must consider assessee’s claim of benefit of section 11(2) of the Act subject to fulfillment of all the conditions of the said provisions. With the aforesaid observations, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA no.7066/Mum./2005 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 1999–2000
The aforesaid appeal arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the directions of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the impugned assessment year.
In view of our decision in ITA no.1443/Mum./2005 and ITA no. 9272/Mum./2004, specific adjudication of this appeal is not required. The appeal having become infructuous is hereby dismissed.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
25 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
ITA no.2244/Mum./2005 Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 2000–2001
Grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal are identical to ITA no.1443/Mum./2005, except the figures. Therefore, our decision in ITA no.1443/Mum./2005, will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal as well.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
ITA no.616/Mum./2005 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2000–01
Ground no.1 of this appeal is identical to ground no.1 of ITA no. 9272/Mum./2004. Following our decision therein, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh keeping in view our direction therein. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
Ground no.2, is against 50% disallowance out of expenses incurred for purchase of tickets.
This ground is identical to ground no.3, of ITA no.9272/Mum./ 2004. Following our decision therein, we delete the disallowance sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). This ground is allowed.
26 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged disallowance of entertainment expenditure of ` 4,64,237.
This ground is similar to ground no.5, of ITA no.9272/Mum./ 2004. Following our decision therein, we uphold the disallowance made by the Departmental Authorities. This ground is dismissed.
Ground no.4 is identical to ground no.6 of ITA no.9272/Mum./ 2004. Following our decision therein, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer with similar direction. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA no.6705/Mum./2005 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2000–2001
This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the impugned assessment year. In view of our decision in ITA no.2244/Mum./2005, and ITA no.616/Mum./2005, in the earlier part of the order, there is no need for separate adjudication of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal having become infructuous is dismissed.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed.
27 The Board of Control for Cricket in India
To sum up, Revenue’s appeals in ITA no.1443/Mum./2005 and ITA no.2244/Mum./2005 are dismissed.Assessee’s appeals in ITA no. 9272/Mum./2004 and ITA no.616/Mum./2005 are partly allowed.Assessee’s appeals in ITA no.7066/Mum./2005 and ITA no.6705/Mum./ 2005 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.10.2018
Sd/- Sd/- N.K. PRADHAN SAKTIJIT DEY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED: 31.10.2018 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary
(Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai