(2016) 134 DTR 113 (Mum) Sunil Gavaskar vs. ITO A.Ys.: 2001-02 & 2002-03 Date of Order: 16th March, 2016

The assessee had received income in the form of foreign remittances, on which deduction was claimed u/s 80RR, in pursuance to an agreement, dated 10th May, 1999 with M/s ESPN Star Sports for rendering services on an exclusive basis as a presenter, reporter and commentator and various other allied services described in the said agreement. The CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that this deduction is available to a person who is sportsman or a person belonging to any one of the categories as mentioned in the said section and the income must be derived as a result of carrying out that very activity only. But in the case of assessee, since assessee was no more a sportsman or a cricketer and in any case since the impugned income was not earned as a result of playing cricket, and therefore, the assessee was not eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80RR.

Held

Since, the term sportsman has not been defined in the Act and the impugned provisions are beneficial provisions intending to provide the benefits to the public at large, therefore, it would be appropriate to analyse the expression sportsman as is used commonly by the society in generic sense. The Tribunal referred to the meaning of the term sportsman in Wikipedia and from that definition, it noted that the term sportsman may also be used to describe a former player who continues to remain associated and engaged, for the promotion of the related sport activities. The facts of the case are that the assessee has been undoubtedly a cricketer of international stature. It has been shown before the Tribunal that the assessee has been playing cricket matches in India and abroad, even after he had stopped playing tournaments of international and national levels.

Thus, the term sportsman includes not only persons who actively played in the field in the impugned year but also a person who had been actively playing in the field in earlier years and thereafter, he continued to remain associated with the related sport and promoted the same sport, but from outside the field. The Tribunal relied on the fact that in section 80RR, it has been no where mentioned that the sportsman should be the person who is currently playing in the field or the person earning income directly from playing in the field only. Thus, the broader objective of section 80RR is met if the term sportsman is defined in a wider sense, as seems to have been intended by the legislature also. In this backdrop, it can certainly be said that the assessee was a sportsman during the year for the purpose of section 80RR.

Any income derived by the sportsman during the course of his profession which arise out of core activity (i.e. activity of playing in the field), and also other subsidiary & allied activities which are linked to and have nexus with the core activity of the sports, should also be included in the scope of the income eligible for deduction u/s 80RR. The Tribunal proceeded to clarify that any type of income which has remote or no connection with or which is independent of the core activity would not be covered in this section. Further, those activities which go beyond the parameters of profession and take the shape of business activities shall also not fall in the scope of income derived during the course of profession in the context of section 80RR. The

Tribunal concluded that the impugned income had been derived by the assessee in the exercise of his profession as a ‘sportsman’ and allowed the claim of the assessee