Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-I v. Ms.aishwarya K. Rai

bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central)-I … Appellant v/s Ms.Aishwarya K. Rai … Respondent Mr.Charanjeet Chanderpal for the appellant. Mr.Sameer Dalal i/by Mr.Sudhakar G. Lakhani for the respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2014 P. C. : 1Having heard Mr.Chanderpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at some length, we are of the opinion that the question as framed in the memo of appeal does not arise for determination and consideration in this appeal. 2In the present case, it was not the objection of the revenue that the claim of the respondent asseessee does not fall within the purview of Section 80RR of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was not the case of the department that the income was not derived during the course of the assignment or job as an artist or actor. In other words, the income of an individual resident in India, namely, assessee before us, as an artist and derived in the exercise of the profession from the Government of foreign State or any person not resident in India, was not an issue arising for determination and consideration. The issue raised was of compliance with the requirement of Section 80RR and particularly of the proviso thereto. That proviso requires the assessee to furnish a certificate in the prescribed form along with the return of income certifying that the deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with the provisions of the section. The claim was rejected on the ground that Form 10H was not filed and the money was not brought to India in convertible foreign exchange. These two objections have been overruled by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that, in the case of similarly placed assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as also the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had allowed the claim. The requisite compliances were made later on and yet the claim was granted. Therefore, the issue was of compliance with the requirement of Section 80RR and not of the applicability of Section 80RR of the Act. Therefore, our upholding such factual findings with regard to the compliance of Section 80RR should not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the applicability of the provision itself. That is an issue which has not been dealt with by any of the authorities because it was never raised. As and when raised, the observations or any incidental finding on applicability of Section 80RR, will not prevent revenue from raising appropriate pleas in accordance with law. With this clarification, the present appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and it is dismissed as such. (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)