BCCI is not taxable on foreign match income from PILCOM as it only received Indian match revenue.

ORDER

Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member. – The present appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 30.03.1999 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 1996-97.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:

“(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the PILCOM is fully a managing committee and a part of Board of Control for a Cricket in India (BCCI) and directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income of PILCOM substantively in the case BCCI

(2) On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting U.S. $ 1.16 crores from the income of PILCOM on the ground that PILCOM was to act as a Manager of the appellant (BCCI) and Pakistan Cricket Board.

(3) On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of U.S. $ 67.79 lakhs made on account of surplus as per Receipt & Expenditure details of Citibank, London and addition of U.S. $ 2 lakhs made on account of accrued interest, holding that the said amount is already included in the amount of U.S. $ 4.85 lakhs in Citibank, London Account of PILCOM.

(4) On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting addition of U.S.S 93,92,092/- being surplus on account of 37 matches of World Cup, 1996 stating that PILCOM does not come into picture at all as far as income from 37 matches is concerned.

3. Facts of the case are that the assessee is a stated to be Non-profit society duly registered under societies Registration Act 1980 with its objects of promoting game of cricket and to foster the spirit of sportsmanship in India. It had been notified as such by notification dated 12.7.1996 issued u/s 10(23) of the Act. The return was filed on 30.10.96 claiming above exemption. The World Cup Competition 1996 was co-hosted by India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka as per rights granted by International Cricket Council(ICC).For the purposes of smooth conduct of the matches as stipulated by the ICC, a committed was formed of three Boards of Cricket named as PILCOM. Various terms and conditions were entered into. Subsequently, the surplus over expenditure in respect of matches played in India was worked out at Rs 23.42 cr. and was duly disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. The AO passed order us/ 143(3) holding the committee PILCOM as independent entity and he considered the total income of matches played outside India also and worked out the income at Rs 98.05 cr which was provisionally included as assesses income. Consequently, action of the AO resulted in assessment of income of Pakistan and Sri Lanka Boards though such income could not be taxed in its hands.

4. In the subsequent appeal, the assessee contested the action of AO before the ld.CIT(A) raising various grounds of appeal. The said order is reproduced as below for the sake of brevity and clarity:

“The appeal is directed against the high pitched additions made on protective basis by the assessing officer by including the entire income from the cricket tournament of Wills World Cup 1996 on an estimate basis. The appellant is a well-known institution engaged in the promotion and encouragement of the game to cricket in India. It is also the Apex Regulatory Body for the control, supervision and conduct of cricket tournament in India and it is recognised by the Central Govt. for the purposes of exemption u/s.10(23) The appellant co-hosted the Wills World Cup Cricket Tournament along with Cricket Board of Sri Lanka and Pakistan and for the smooth conduct of the said tournament as well as for better co-ordination amongst the co-hostsa committee comprising of the representatives of the Cricket Board of India, Pakistan Sri Lanka, & ICC was constituted. The said committee named PILCOM was entrusted with the sole responsibility of looking after the common pool receipts and disbursement and to maintain the account of such common pool receipt and expenses. The said committee was treated as an Association of Persons (A.O.P) by the concerned assessing officer at Calcutta and the entire income from the said World Cup Tournament was sought to be assessed in the hands of PILCOM. But the said effort of the assessing officer at Calcutta was defeated by the order of the ITAT, Calcutta dated 30.3.98 wherein it was clearly held that the PILCOM it not an A.O.P. The assessing officer of the appellant also following closely in the foot steps of its Calcutta counterpart has treated the PILCOM as an independent entity which was liable for tax liability in respect of the income arising from the Wills World Cup1996. The income of the PILCOM was worked out mostly on estimate basis and on the basis of some details requisitioned by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings in the case of the appellant. As the appellant was responsible for the conduct of cricket matches of the Wills World cup 1996 in India the income of the PIL.COM was added to the income of the appellant on protective basis. No reasons are given by the assessing office for such a protective addition in the assessment order, but it appears that the assessing officer was goaled into making such addition on protective basis due to the close association of the appellant with Wills World Cup, 1996. Side by side the income attributable to the cricket matches hosted by India under the supervision of the appellant was also excluded from the income of the appellant though the appellant had incorporated the said income from cricket matches in India in its regular account as well as in its return of income. On the top of it the exemption u/s. 10(23) was denied to the appellant in respect of the addition made on protective basis. Thus, on the one hand the so called income of the PILCOM was included in the total income of the appellant and on the other hand the exemption u/s 10(23) was denied to the appellant in respect of the said income resulting in the creation of huge tax demand.

2. The brief background of the Wills World Cup, 1996 is as under:

The appellant along with the Cricket Boards of Pakistan & Sri Lanka was allotted the Wills World Cup Tournament by the L.C.C. and the terms and conditions between the 3 co-hosts for hosting the cricket matches as well as for sharing the receipts and expenses arising from such cricket matches are clearly spelt out in the Minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the 3 Boards from time to time. Out of the total 37 matches allotted to this Consortium of the Cricket Bounds, India was to hold 17 matches, Pakistan 16 Matches and Sri Lanka was to hold 4 matches. Each of the co-host was concerned with only one lag of the tournament being played in their country and the expenditure and receipts relating thereto and surplus or deficit flowing therefrom. But, there were certain common expenses and common receipts and the arrangement for sharing such expenses and receipts was arrived at between the 3 Boards in a meeting held in Lahore in April, 1993. To give a clear picture of the financial arrangements arrived at between the representatives of the 3 co-hosts the relevant extract from the Minutes of the said meeting are quoted asunder:-

It was agreed that the Sri Lanka Board would not share the profit/loss accruing from then tournament, bot would confine itself tothe surplus/deficit accruing from the matches that would be hosted by them. Their revenue would also include internal TV rights from such matches. Earnings from external TV rights would be retained by the Cricket Board of Pakistan & India, in view of their foreign exchange commitments. The Sri Lanka Board would also provide for one-way international air travel, internal travel, local transport, accommodation, meals, laundry expenses of the teams that will go to play in Sri Lanka as well as any other usual expenses to organise an international match.

It was also agreed that the costs of internal travel, local transport accommodation, meal, laundry etc. of the teams, as well as the organisational expenses for matches in Pakistan and India would be borne by the Cricket Boards of Pakistan and India respectively. Similarly, income accruing from gate sales, banner rents, stall, ground advertisements (except that committed to the title sponsor) for matches in Pakistan and India, would be retained by the Cricket Boards of Pakistan and India respectively. It was also agreed that deficit/surplus on such accounts would be sole responsibility of BCCP & BCCI, and would not be transferred to the joint account.”

From the above extracts of the Minutes of the meeting it is abundantly clear that each country was required to bear and pay the expenses incurred for the matches played in that country and was entitled to the receipts flowing from such matches. But, there were certain common expenses which were to be borne equally by the Boards of India and Pakistan who were hosting almost equal number of matches. Likewise, there were certain receipts like title sponsorship money, receipt account of International TV rights which were to be shared equally by the appellant and the Pakistan Cricket Board. The assessing officer was fully conversant with the financial arrangement arrived at between the co-hosts of Wills World Cup 1996 and the same are mentioned in detail in Para 7.1 and Para 7.2. of the assessment order. The assessing officer was also fully conversant with the constitution of PILCOM and the responsibility assigned to it by the Cricket Boards of Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka so it is very clear from Para 7.3. of the assessment order.

3. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the financial arrangements agreed man by the co-hosts, the appellant had included the receipts and expenses pertaining to specific port of cricket tournaments played in India, in its income. Besides, the common receipts to which the appellant was also entitled by virtue of the agreement with Pakistan Cricket Board (PC) are also incorporated in the regular accounts of the appellant and naturally all the receipts and expenses pertaining to that particular leg of World Cup Tournament are duly incorporated in its regular accounts and the same are disclosed in the Return of income.

4. The assessing officer has proceeded on the reasoning that PILCOM is an independent assessable entity and being an A.O.P. comprising the representatives of 3 Cricket Boards should be the sole recipient of the entire income flowing from the Wills World Cup, 1996. The income attributable to the Indian operation of Wills World Cup which was incorporated by the appellant in its regular account and returned income also are considered by the assessing officer to be the income of the PILCOM and not that of the appellant. It is clearly mentioned in Para 9.2 of the assessment order that Wills World Cup, 1996 was organised by PIL.COM which is a different entity and as such any income from Wills World Cup cannot be considered as part of the income of BCCI. Therefore, the assessing officer while retaining the income pertaining to the Wills World Cup in the hands of the appellant on provisional basis has proceeded to compute the income of the appellant without incorporating therein any income from the Wills World Cup, 1996, The income so arrived at by the assessing officer after excluding the share income of the appellant from the Wills World Cup, 1996 was determined at the figure of Rs.2.33 crores and this income alone was treated to be the income of the appellant by the assessing officer on substantive basis and exemption was allowed only with reference to the income determined as aforesaid. Thereafter, the assessing officer proceeded to compute the income of the PILCOM on the basis of details made available by the appellant in respect of its own assessment proceedings and on the basis of estimate.

5. The following items are treated to be the income of the PILCOM by the assessing officer. As per Para 9.3 of the assessment order the credit balancein the bank account of PILCOM in Citi Bank London was treated to be the income of the PILCOM. However, in para 9.3 there is no specific finding how the said credit balance in the honk account is the income of the appellant or that of PIL.COM. As per Para 9.4 the title Sponsorship money received from theITC was treated to be the income of the PIL.COM. As per Para 9.5 the interest on credit balance in the Citi Bank account London was estimated at Rs.2 lakhs. In the same para the income of the PIL.COM from 37 matches was also calculated by adopting the average surplus of 17 matches declared by the appellant in its account. The total income of the PILCOM so worked out by the assessing officer is as under-

6. The said income of Rs.98.05 crores was added to the income of the appellant on protective basis. But, surprisingly the exemption u/s.10(23) was not extended in respect of the said income on the ground that the income in reality belonged to PILCOM and not to the appellant. As a result huge demand of Rs.62.67 crores was raised in the case of the appellant on protective basis.

“The appellant had objected to the above addition on various grounds:-

7. All these anomalies and arithmetical errors in the computation of the income of PILCOM and the appellant were communicated to the assessing officer and he was required to clarify whether the allegations leveled by the appellant regarding computation of income are correct. The verification of the anomalies and arithmetical errors pointed out by the appellant was to be carried out strictly with reference to the available records. But on some ground or other the assessing officer kept on postponing the submission of Remand Report. A letter dated 8.2.2002 was received from the Jt. Director (Exem), Rg.I, Mumbai, In the said letter JDIT had requested the assessing officer who had passed the assessment order to help in the preparation of Remand Report and has also given a note to the undersigned that these figures for verification are based on some confidential information and the assessing officer who has passed the assessment order has been requested to provide a correct picture of the same. Ultimately on 18.2.2002 the assessing officer had given a report that from the assessment records the basis for calculation of various figures appearing in the assessment order cannot be found and therefore he requested the undersigned to proceed with the appeal and decide the sue on merit. In view of the above submission of the assessing officer and the concerned JDIT the inference is inevitable that they are not able to substantiate the computation of income as appearing in the assessment order. Therefore, I had called for the assessment records from the assessing officer on 26.2.2002 and the same were immediately supplied. I have perused the assessment records carefully and am of the opinion that the arithmetical inaccuracies and anomalies pointed out by the appellant in the computation of income in the assessment order are by and large correct and gets substantiated from various details available in the assessment records itself.

8. The audited accounts furnished by the appellant in the course of assessment proceedings provide a very clear picture of the accounting of various receipts and expenses pertaining to the Wills World Cup 1996. The total receipts from Wills World Cup was Rs.48.68 crores and the expenses are Rs.25.03 crores. These are included in the account of the appellant and a detailed break up of these receipts and expenses is available in the various Schedules forming part of the audited accounts of the appellant. The income relating to World Cup as well as the expenses are reflected in the Schedule-1 and therein the receipt by way of Title Sponsorship fees, Interim Distribution of income & Guarantee money are duly reflected. The income item material for consideration in the appellate proceedings are “Event and other Sponsorship amounting to Rs.19.13 crores, Interim Distribution of income amounting to Rs.7.06 crores & Guarantee Money amounting to Rs.1.25 crores. Detailed break up of these receipts is given in the details filed in the course of assessment proceedings vide appellant’s letter dated 11.3.1994 and submitted on 12.3.1999. Events and Other Sponsorship includes the Title Sponsorship fees received from ITC amounting to Rs. 18.60 crores. Thus, all the receipts as claimed by the appellant in the course of appellate proceedings are duly reflected in its account. The expenses pertaining to World Cup are also reflected in the same Schedule-1. But the same are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal.

9. The details of bank account of PILCOM in City Bank London were furnished by the appellant on 23.3.99 and as per the said details of bank account the credit balance is 20.85 lakhs US $ and not 67.79 US $ as alleged by the assessing officer. In the said bank account also the interest credited to the account of PILCOM of 4.85 lakhs US S is also there and therefore bad the assessing office perused the said bank statement there was no necessity at all for making the addition to the income of PILCOM on account of accrued interest on the accrued credit balance. The details of surplus arising from the Wills World Cup are also available in the assessment records and they form part of regular audited accounts of the appellant. As per the said account the surplus is Rs.23.42 crores and the said surplus includes the title Sponsorship money and Interim Distribution of income and Guarantee money receipts. The amount of these receipts exactly tally with the claim of the appellant and the same are duly considered in arriving at the surplus of Wills Wet Cup, 1996. A separate addition made by the assessing officer in respect of Title Sponsorship fees, Interim Distribution of income and Guarantee Money receipts naturally debar him from including these amounts in the surplus of Wills World Cup for working out an average surplus per match. The reinclusion of these amounts in surplus for working out the said average is violative of the fundamentals of accountancy and amounts to double addition to the income of the PILCOM and in turn to the income of the appellant

10. Now, I would like to comment on the merits of the addition and the items included try the assessing officer in computing the total income of the PIL.COM. First of all, the PILCOM not an AOP and this issue is decided in favour of the appellant by the Calcutta ITAT Judgement dated 30.3.98. There it has been clearly held that the essential ingredients of an AOP that is joining together for the purpose of earning profit is totally exempt in the constitution of PILCOM and therefore, it cannot be considered to be an AOP. Secondly, the PILCOM is only a sort of management committee comprising of the nominees of ICC and Cricket Board of India. Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It was entrusted with the limited responsibility for maintaining the account of common receipts and expenses and to facilitate the coordination among the 3 Cricket Boards and the ICC for the smooth conduct of Wills World Cup. Therefore, to treat the PILCOM as an independent assessable entity and to compute its income in respect of all the cricket matches of Wills World Cup 1996 was erroneous. In fact, the PILCOM being only a management committee could not have earned any income and whatever was received by it was only for defraying certain common expenses and surplus if any remaining was to be allocated between the appellant and the Pakistan Cricket Board. Thus, PIH.COM was not entitled to earn or receive any income out of the Wills World Cup 1996 match. Therefore, the computation of the income from Wills World Cup in the hands of the PILCOM is primafacie incorrect and erroneous.

11. Regarding the addition of credit balance appearing in the account of PIL.COM & Citi Bank London I feel that the inclusion of the same in the income of the PILCOM is totally unjustified. The said account is not a clandestine bank account which was not disclosed to the Department. It was a regular account of the PILCOM and the source of deposits in the sand account is fully verifiable and the receipts in the said account are from well-known institutions The disbursement of the said account have also been made to well-known institutions or for defraying the various expenses. Even as per the principles of the accountancy the credit or debit balance in any bank account is an item of Balance Sheet and not an item of Profit and Loss account. The disbursement of some amount have been made to the appellant also and the same are duly reflected in its Income and Expenditure Account. Amount disbursed by way of Interim Distribution is also reflected in the account of the appellant. In addition whatever the simples is left in the said account after realization of all the receivables and satisfaction of all the liabilities is allocable between the appellant and the Pakistan Cricket Board. Such a surplus remaining after discharging of all the liabilities constitute an allocable simples and the one can be determined only on a final settlement of all the accounts pertaining to the receipts and expenses of the Wills World Cup, 1996. On final settlement of accounts, the surplus is to be distributed between the appellant and the Pakistan Cricket Board. In addition, any credit balance in the bank account at the end of the accounting period cannot automatically become an income unless all the liabilities are fully ascertained and taken into consideration. The assessing officer has also not given any reason for treating the said surplus as income of the PILCOM. Naturally, the said surplus cannot become the income of PILCOM under the provisions of section 69 and there is no provision in the IT Act which can convert an asset into an item of income. Hence the treatment of the credit balance as an income item is totally unjustified and the addition on this account is deleted.

12. Likewise, the incorporation of the Title Sponsorship Fee amounting to 1.16 crores US S in the income of the PILCOM was totally unjustified and without any basis. A part of the said amount i.e. 45% of the Title Sponsorship fee is reflected in the account of the appellant and the balance 45% has been paid to Pakistan Cricket Board after deduction of tax at the appropriate rate. How is the amount which was not received or receivable by a person can become his income? Only 10% of the sponsorship fee was passed on to PIL.COM and that too for meeting common expenses relating to Wills World Cup 1996. Even in disbursement of the said amount the PILCOM was to act only as a Manager of the appellant and the Pakistan Cricket Board and was bound to spend the said amount in accordance with the directions. Therefore, this amount of 1.16 crores US $ is wrongly included in the income of the PILCOM and the same is hereby deleted.

13. The addition on account of accrued interest of 2,00,000 US $ is wholly unjustified because, the interest due on the credit balance of PILCOM amounting to 4.85 lakhs US $ is already included in the Citi Bank London Account of PILCOM. It seems that the assessing officer has not perused the said account carefully, otherwise, he would not have made the addition on account of accrued interest to the income of the appellant. This addition is also deleted.

14. The income of all the 37 matches played in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka is certainly not the income of the PIL.COM. As per the terms of agreement between the Cricket Boards of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka the receipts and expenses pertaining to the cricket matches in the respective countries were to be retained and discharged by the Cricket Board of these countries PILCOM has not even received a single penny out of these 37 matches. The receipts and expenditure attributable to 17 matches played in India is included in the regular account of the appellant and the latter is wholly entitled to any surplus arising out of these 17 matches f virtue of the terms of agreement between the 3 Cricket Boards. The surplus in respect of the other matches is appropriated by the Cricket Boards of Pakistan & Sri Lanka and therefore the PILCOM does not come into picture at all so far as the income from 37 matches is concerned. Moreover, the method of working out the average surplus per match as adopted by the assessing officer is also defective because items which have been separately taxed by the assessing officer as income of the PILCOM is again included in computing the average surplus per match. This amounts to double addition. If the amount already considered by the assessing officer separately in the computation of income of PUILCOM are removed, there will be no average surplus, but only average deficit per match. In that event there cannot be any separate addition on account of 37 matches in the income of PILCOM by adopting the average method of working out the surplus per match on the basis of the surplus shown by the appellant in its account.

15. Thus, the assessing officer has wrongly included the income referred to in Para 9.3, 9.4 & 9.5 in the total income of PILCOM. In fact the PILCOM is not the recipient of any income because it is only a managing committee and secondly the items of income mentioned in these paras are those items of income which were already appropriated by the Cricket Boards of India, Pakistan & Sri Lanka. The appellant alone has shown surplus of Rs.23.42 Crores from the Wills World Cup and this is the income which the appellant had actually received and to which he was entitled to by virtue of the terms of the contract entered into between the Cricket Boards of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The appellant was liable to pay tax only in respect of the surplus derived out of the matches played in India and the income arising out of the matches played outside India cannot be subjected to Indian Income tax. According to section 5, only the income received or receivable by any Indian Resident or accruing or arising to any Indian Resident is taxable as per Income Tax Act. But, in the instant case not even a single penny out of the income from 20 cricket matches played outside India is received or receivable by the appellant: It has been fully illustrated earlier that not even a single penny of income is receivable by the so called A.O.P. which is generated out of the matches played in India or outside. Whatever is received by the appellant or receivable is reflected in its regular accounts and the entitlement to receive any further sum on account of organizing the tournament of World Cup 1996 is depending upon the terms of financial arrangements arrived at between the Cricket Boards of 3 countries. As per the said agreement the appellant is entitled to receive only the income from cricket matches played in India. Thus, the appellant has neither received nor it is entitled to receive income in respect of the matches played outside India. Therefore, the inclusion of the said income of balance 20 matches in the income of the appellant is totally unjustified even on provisional basis and hence the same is deleted. Likewise, the sponsorship and other amount which were not received or receivable by the appellant cannot form a part of its income and therefore all the provisional additions made on account of the association of the appellant with the PILCOM are hereby deleted because such additions are even beyond the scope of charging section. The theory of real income also debar the assessing officer from taxing such income in the hands of the appellant which is neither received nor receivable by it. Hence, it is held that the entire addition of Rs.98.05 crores made to the income of the appellant on provisional basis is deleted and the assessing officer is directed to tax the income shown by the appellant in its return of income inclusive of the income derived by the appellant from the relevant portion of Wills World Cup, 1996. The income from Wills World Cup 1996 as reflected in the accounts of the appellant has to be treated as an income of the appellant on substantive basis and the assessing officer is directed to re-compute the income of the appellant accordingly.

16. It is seen that the exemption in respect of the provisions addition was not granted to the appellant u/s.10(23). The appellant is entitled to the said exemption and no reason was given by the assessing officer for denying the same. Now, the additions made on provisional basis are deleted in toto, the assessing officer is also directed to grant exemption u/s.10(23) on the balance of income of the appellant.

17. The other ground of appeal, like ground No.6 and Ground No.9 are not relevant for the purpose of determining the income of the appellant and therefore the same pre not adjudicated. Ground Nos. 2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12, & 13 are adjudicated and are decided in favour of the appellant in the foregoing paras.”

5. Before us, the Id.DR has placed reliance on the assessment order claiming that the addition was justified on the facts and the circumstances of the case. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the findings and the observations of the AO in correct perspective. He did not consider the important fact that the accounts of the PILCOM were not audited and could not be considered reliable and authentic.

6. Pre contra, the Sr.Counsel appearing for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Department had filed writ for various assessment years including the relevant assessment year before the hon’ble Bombay High Court which are still pending. However, he added the issue involved herein could be adjudicated as it mainly involves additions made by the AO on protective basis in the hands of the assessee though, he intimated that no substantive addition was made any other case. It was also informed that no stay was in force by the hon’ble Court preventing the Tribunal to proceed and adjudicate the impugned matter. The ld.CIT(DR) did not controvert the contentions.

6.1 The ld.AR further submitted that the issue of exemption u/s 10(23) of the Act which was duly allowed by the appellate authority was not the issue for consideration as the grounds of appeal do not contain any such ground. He placed on record the assessment order passed by the AO for the relevant assessment year in the case of BCCI dated 31.03.2004 in which the claim of such exemption u/s 10(23) of the Act has already been allowed and is not being disputed by the Revenue as the grounds of appeal in the instant appeal are silent on this issue.

6.2 On merits, he relied on the findings and observation of the ld.CIT(A) while allowing the claim of the assessee. He further contended that entire income of the assessee was exempt u/s 10(23) of the Act.

7. We have carefully examined the factual matrix of the case, heard the rival submissions and perused the records. On careful consideration of the entire conspectus of facts of the case, we find no infirmity in the appellate order wherein the ld.CIT(A) has exhaustively dealt with all the relevant aspects of the issue involved and held that no protective assessment was justified as the PILCOM was not having any independent existence of its own but was merely for as a committee of three Board for Cricket for successful conduct of Wills World Cup in 1996 and was a part of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and rightly directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income of PILCOM substantively in the case of BCCI as the said income of Rs.98.05 cr. from matches played outside India was wrongly considered as the income of the assessee on protective basis. Moreover, the AO was not justified in treating PILCOM s AOP which was contrary to the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Kolkata. There is categorical findings and decision w.r.t.the claim of exemption u/s 10(23) of the Act which has not been contested by the Revenue in the instant appeal before us.

7.1 We find that the ld.CIT(A) has elaborately examined the terms and condition of the agreement accordingly to which the entire tournament was to be run as also the financial aspects thereof. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the financial arrangements agreed man by the co-hosts, the appellant had included the receipts and expenses pertaining to specific port of cricket tournaments played in India, in its income. Besides, the common receipts to which the appellant was also entitled by virtue of the agreement with Pakistan Cricket Board (PC) are also incorporated in the regular accounts of the appellant and naturally all the receipts and expenses pertaining to that particular leg of World Cup Tournament are duly incorporated in its regular accounts and the same are disclosed in the Return of income. Accordingly, the income attributable to the Indian operation of Wills World Cup which was incorporated by the assessee in its regular account and returned income also were wrongly considered by the AO to be the income of the PILCOM and not that of the assessee. The facts emanating from the whole issue clearly make it evident that the PILCOM was not the recipient of any income because it was only a Managing committee and secondly, the items of income mentioned in these paras are those items of income which were already appropriated by the Cricket Boards of India, Pakistan & Sri Lanka. The assessee after deriving surplus of Rs.23.42 cr. had actually received and to which it was entitled to by virtue of the terms of the contract entered into between the Cricket Boards of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. from the World Cup which was clearly reflected in its accounts and this is the income which the appellant As per the said agreement the appellant is entitled to receive only the income from cricket matches played in India. Thus, the assessee had neither received nor it is entitled to receive income in respect of the matches played outside India. Therefore, the inclusion of the said income of balance 20 matches in the income of the appellant was totally unjustified.

7.2 Accordingly, we hold that there was no justification for making any protective assessment in the hand of PILCOM on protective basis and entire income was correctly shown by the assessee in its own hands which was rightly treated as exempt u/s 10(230 of the Act by the ld.CIT(A).The grounds of appeal are, accordingly, dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed.