TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (2) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losed income for the block period at Rs. 53,01,738. This figure included an addition of Rs. 23,33,000 as receipts for match-fixing activity and several other additions for investment in properties, unexplained expenditure, unexplained credits and so on and so forth. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) being only partly successful, a further appeal was filed to the Tribunal on several grounds and they are discussed and decided in the following paragraphs. 2. While deciding the various grounds taken in the appeal, we have taken into consideration, as we are bound to, the orders of the IT authorities, the facts marshalled therein, the rival contentions made elaborately before us, the contents of the paper books filed both by the assessee and the Department and the authorities and precedents to which our attention was drawn. 3. The first ground, which is in two parts, is directed against the addition of Rs. 23,33,000 made on account of receipts from match-fixing. The AO adverted to the reference made by the Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports to the CBI to conduct enquiries into the allegations of match-fixing going on regarding test and one-day matches and the role....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1995 Mukesh Gupta 15,000 For purchase of car. 2. 1995 -do- 5,00,000 For introduction to Azharuddin. 3. 1996 -do- 3,00,000 Manipulation of ground at Delhi. 4. 1998 Ajay Gupta 5,00,000 For introduction to &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heless material on which the AO can rely, that the assessee himself had admitted the fact that he received monies from MK and others for match-fixing and, therefore, the AO was perfectly justified in adding the amount of Rs. 23,33,000 as match-fixing amounts. 5. The assessee is in further appeal. The main contention advanced on his behalf is that no evidence has been found relating to match-fixing allegations I against the assessee "as a result of the search" as required by s. 158BC, that the addition is based on the statement of the assessee before CBI which is uncorroborated, that the report of the Madhavan Commission which is only an opinion given by an individual on the basis of some preliminary investigations which can at best be only a starting point for further probe, that the statement made by the assessee before the AO on 12th Sept., 2000, only shows that the assessee may be having links with Ajay Gupta but cannot constitute evidence on the basis of which it can be concluded that the assessee was being remunerated for alleged match-fixing activity, that even the statement dt.6th Nov., 2000, was made before the Investigation Wing of the Department and was not corroborate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elatable to the evidence gathered during the search within the meaning of s. 158BB(1) and, therefore, he was entitled to rely upon them for the purpose of making an assessment of the match-fixing receipts. Mr. Verma also relied on the statement of the assessee made before the CBI (copy filed) in which the assessee was alleged to have made an admission that he was indulging in match-fixing for monetary consideration. 7. In support of the above submissions, the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) relied on the following judgments: (a) Pullangode Rubber & Production Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253: (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) (b) Thiru John AIR 1977 SC 1724 Besides the above arguments, the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) strongly relied on the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of the material placed on record and contents of the paper books filed by both sides. We have also perused carefully the statements of the assessee given before the CBI as well as before the IT authorities. On considering the above and comparing them with the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion made on the basis of statement of Mukesh Kumar Gupta or on estimate basis cannot be upheld. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee is allowed and the addition of Rs. 9,65,000 sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted." It has thus been held that the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission, which formed the basis of the addition for match-fixing receipts, cannot be relied upon for making the additions as they were not evidence found during the search. In the present case also, no evidence was found during the search of the premises of the assessee. to establish that he received any consideration in money for match-fixing. But, what the CIT(A) has held and what the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) contended was that the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission can constitute material or information as are available with the AO and hence can form the basis of the addition. We are unable to accept the submission, which is based on the amendment made to s. 158BB(1) by the Finance (No. .2) Act, 1998, with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995, since it gives effect only to the first part of the amendment and ignores the second part thereof, which is perhaps t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f reimbursement of expenses and fees from BCCI towards representingIndiain tests and one-day cricket matches inIndiaand abroad. He claimed that they were exempt in terms of a circular issued by the CBDT on26th Nov., 1981. He also stated that some of the amounts received from BCCI were credited to his bank account during the financial years 1993-94 and 1994-95. The AO however noted that they were not disclosed in the regular returns. In the asst. yr. 1991-92, in which year the assessee declared the receipts in the return, the assessee had claimed deduction of 50 per cent for expenses in terms of the above circular. The AO agreed that the amount received and declared in the return for the asst. yr. 1991-92 cannot be considered in the block assessment, but as regards the other receipts relating to the other years, he held that they have to be dealt with in the block assessment. 10. Having held so, he proceeded to examine the question whether the assessee is a professional cricketer and concluded that he was and was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the circular which was applicable only to amateur cricketers. He further noted that the circular issued on26th Nov., 1981, had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the money received upto September, 1997, cannot be taxed and only a sum of Rs. 30,000 for the asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02 can be taxed as undisclosed income. 15. We have considered the matter. The reason why the CIT(A) held that the money received upto September, 1997, cannot be taxed is that it was on 22nd Sept., 1997, that the earlier Circular No. 1432 issued in 1981 was withdrawn by the CBDT and that in the earlier circular there was no distinction made between professional and non-professional cricketers, with the result that the exemption was available upto September, 1997. He has, therefore, held the receipts upto that month cannot be taxed and only Rs. 30,000 relating to the asst. yrs. 2000-01 and 2001-02 can be taxed as undisclosed income. However, the basic question is whether any incriminating material or evidence was seized during the search to show that the assessee was in receipt of such monies. The answer should be in the negative because no such material or evidence is adverted to in the block assessment order. All that the AO has said is that a list of unofficial matches in which the assessee played was given to him by the Investigation Wing on10th Oct., 2000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot income, that even the contract with the PCC confirmed this, that since the assessee was out of India for 22 weeks from April, 2000, to September, 2000, he could not have disclosed the amount as income even assuming that it was his income and that at any rate according to s. 158BA(3) the income is assessable only in the year 2001-02. The learned CIT (Departmental Representative), on the other hand, placed very strong reliance on the decision of the CIT(A) and his reasoning. 19. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) requires no interference. We have seen the work permit which is in the paper book which says that the "salary/remuneration $ 3,500 in total". We have also examined the contract of employment with PCC dt.4th Feb., 2000, which is also compiled in the paper book. In all, there are 8 clauses in it, none of which speaks of any payment to the assessee. However, cl. 2 says that the assessee "is to make his own way from his home to all league and cup fixtures", which suggests that expenditure on conveyance will have to be borne by the assessee himself. But, the expenditure referred to in this clause as well as o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of a car. A perusal of the assessment order shows that it was only during the post-search enquiries that it came to light that the assessee had purchased a second-hand Maruti car from Vijay Gupta during the later part of 1991 for Rs. 70,000 paid in cash. After examining the assessee and Vijay Gupta in the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO rejected the assessee's claim and brought the amount to tax for the asst. yr. 1992-93. The appeal to the CIT(A) being unsuccessful, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 23. This is again a matter for consideration in a regular assessment proceeding and not to be dealt with in a block assessment, as nothing has been found during the search to show that the assessee has paid the amount of RS. 70,000 in cash and out of his undisclosed income. Even the AO refers only to "post-search enquiries" as the basis for the addition. In the absence of any evidence found during the search, the post-search enquiries cannot be acted upon by the AO even as material or information relatable to any evidence found during the search, within the meaning of s. 158BB(1). The IT authorities were not, therefore, justified in taxing the am....