TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 60 lakhs was an ex gratia payment voluntarily made by the BCCI and represents capital receipt not of the nature of income, as such, voluntary receipts are treated as capital in character." 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee an individual, is a retired professional cricketer. For the assessment year 2013-2014, the return of income was filed on 03.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 24,41,890. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed vide order dated 21.03.2016 by determining the total income at Rs. 96,03,433. One of the additions made by the Assessing Officer was a sum of Rs. 60 lakh being "onetime benefit" received from BCCI. The assessee, in the return of income, has claimed the same as a capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act. The CIT(A) alternatively held that the amount of Rs. 60lakh was received on account of assessee being a cricketer and he had provided services to BCCI in the earlier years. Therefore, the said sum is liable to be taxed in view of provisions of section 28(iv) of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- "5.3 Thus this cannot be said that BCCI was still being held to be eligible to the benefit of Section 11 of the Act and that its registration under Section 12AA was still in existence. So the benefit of proviso (g) to Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act is not available to the appellant. 5.4 Without prejudice to above, another important aspect which needs to be noted is that the provisions of Section 56(2)(v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant assessment year was 2013-2014. It was further submitted that the registration for BCCI u/s 12AA of the I.T.Act was restored by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case ;of BCCI v. Pr.CIT in ITA No.3301/Mum/2019 (order dated 02.11.2011). As regards the CIT(A)'s alternative case that the said amount would be taxable in view of the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act, the learned AR submitted that the CIT(A) did not give adequate notice before rendering such a finding. It was submitted that the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act would not apply when the sum of Rs. 60 lakh was a capital receipt. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, we direct the A.O. to examine whether BCCI was having registration u/s 12AA of the I.T.Act for the relevant assessment year. If the A.O. is satisfied that BCCI was having registration for the relevant assessment year, necessarily the amount of Rs. 60 lakh cannot be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii) of the I.T.Act in view of 2nd proviso (g) to the said section. 7.2 The CIT(A) alternatively held that the amount of Rs. 60 lakh is also taxable u/s 28(iv) of the I.T.Act. The reasoning of CIT(A) for holding so is at para 5.4 of the impugned order. As mentioned earlier, the A.O. held that receipt of Rs. 60 lakh is liable to be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii) of the I.T.Act when CIT(A) wants to tax Rs. 60 lakh also u/s 28(iv) of the I.T.Act, he ought to put the assess....