High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. A. Vijayakant
Section 37(1), 260A
Asst. Year 2004-05
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla & Mrs. R. Banumathi, JJ.
Tax Case (Appeal) No. 972 of 2009
13th October, 2009
Counsel Appeared :
Subramanian, for the Appellant
JUDGMENT
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. :
The Revenue has come forward with the above appeal raising the following substantial questions of law :
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of Rasigar Manram expenses to 20 per cent of the claim even though the expenses had not been established to be genuine with supporting vouchers or other forms of evidence ?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of Rasigar Manram expenses to 20 per cent of the claim even though the assessee had not established that such expenditure, if any, had been incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purpose of his profession ?” The assessee is a popular cine actor. The assessment relates to the year 2004-05. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 20,19,000 towards Rasigar Manram expenses. The assessing authority rejected the said claim. However, the CIT(A), after noticing the fact that for the asst. yrs. 2001-02 to 2003-04, the disallowance on the said head was restricted to 20 per cent allowed the assessee’s appeal by restricting the disallowance to 20 per cent for the asst. yr. 2004-05. While doing so, the CIT(A), apart from taking note of the relief granted in the previous assessment years, also held that Rasigar Manram expenses are most important expenses for the assessee in order to maintain his popularity among the fans and those expenses are relevant to the appellant’s profession. The Tribunal concurred with the conclusion of the CIT(A) and confirmed his order. We also fully support the reasoning of the CIT(A) as well as that of the Tribunal, having restricted the disallowance to an extent of 20 per cent.
It is a well-known fact that popular cine artists promote their Rasigar Manrams for the purpose of promoting their films among the public at large. For that purpose, when it is claimed that substantial amount was spent towards dress, food, etc., at the time of the release of the new films as well as for the regular maintenance of the Rasigar Manram activities, it cannot be held that it was not part of their professional activities, namely, acting in cine field. Therefore, the perception of the CIT(A), which found favour with the Tribunal, cannot be faulted. We, therefore, do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law, to entertain this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
[Citation : 320 ITR 496]
