Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 867 (MAD)

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. K. Chiranjeevi

2004-07-12

N.KANNADASAN, P.D.DINAKARAN

body2004
Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. Heard. The appeal is preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, dated 28.08.2003 in ITA No.2553/95. 2. The assessee is film artist and during the year, the deferred annuity was taken in favour of the assessee by the film producer in consideration of professional services. The first premium was paid and for the remaining premia, the amount was handed over to a concern which is supposed to make payment for subsequent premia. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment for the assessment year 1991-92, assessed the said sum of Rs.40 lakhs, on the ground that the assessee's case do not satisfy the requirements of both circular which stipulates exemption only for the amount paid and not for proposed future payments of annuity. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who followed the earlier decision in the assessee's own case and directed the deletion of the addition and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. On an appeal by the appellant/revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal also held the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the assessee's own case reported in 254 ITR 571. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/revenue raising the following substantial questions of law. 1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that since the amount had not reached the assessee's hands, the premium paid on the deferred annuity policy cannot be taxed? 2.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in ignoring the fact that the entire remuneration had been paid by the producers to the agent of the assessee, and as such the amount had been constructively received by the assessee? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the amounts not paid directly to LIC by the producer, as amount paid towards annuity? 3. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the amounts not paid directly to LIC by the producer, as amount paid towards annuity? 3. The issue raised in this appeal has been answered against the appellant/revenue by a Division Bench of this Court in the assessee's own case (Commissioner of Income Tax -vs- K.Chiranjeevi) reported in 254 ITR 571, wherein it is held as follows:- "Having heard the counsel, perused the order of the Tribunal, as also the instruction issued by the Board being Instruction No.1310, dated February 26, 1980, we do not find any good reason to call for a reference. The Tribunal has held that the assessee, who is a film actor, maintained his accounts in the cash system, and that under the annuity policy, he was to receive the annuities in terms of the policy, though the producer had paid the full value of the policy for purchasing the policy. So far as the assessee is concerned, the amount would reach him only as and when the annuity was paid to him by the insurance company. Even in earlier assessment years, the assessee has been assessed to tax only on the amounts actually received by him during the year. The tax petition is dismissed." 4. Accordingly, following the decision of this Court cited supra, and also, in our considered opinion, finding no question of law much less substantial question of law raised in this appeal, the same stands dismissed.