Commissioner of Income Tax vs A. Vijayakant

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The Revenue has come forward with the above appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricting the disallowance of rasigar mandram 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 ?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricting the disallowance of rasigar mandram 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 mandram expenses. The assessing authority rejected the said claim. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), after noticing the fact that for the assessment years 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 assessment year 2004-05. While doing so, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), apart from taking note of the relief granted in the previous assessment years, also held that rasigar mandram 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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and confirmed his order. We also fully support the reasoning of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 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 mandram 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 mandram activities, it cannot be held that it was not part of their professional activities, namely, acting in cine field. Therefore, the perception of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 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.