Per Pradeep Parikh, Vice President: These are three appeals by assessee. Two of these appeals are directed against combined order of learned CIT(A) dated 27-2-2004 for assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. third appeal is against order of learned CIT(A) dated 21-11-2005 for assessment year 2001-02. As issues involved are common, we find it convenient to dispose of all three appeals together by this combined order. appeal for assessment year 2000- 01 is taken up first for consideration. I. ITA No. 368/Hyd./2004(Assessment Year-2000-01): 2. At outset, assessee has challenged reopening of assessment under section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). assessee individual returned total income of Rs. 2,59,82,232 and agricultural income of Rs. 1,20,000 for year under consideration. This, inter alia, included sum of Rs. 6,05,23,896 said to have been received in his capacity as co- author of three foreign books, viz., 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and Children are from Heaven,' 'Practical Miracles' and 'Truth of Miracles'. main author in first two books was Dr. John Gray of USA and in third it was Kenji Abe of Japan. Further, sum of Rs. 1,17,24,798 was shown as income from profession received by way of gifts from devotees. assessee claimed deduction at Rs. 4,53,92,922 from first amount being 75 per cent thereof under section 80RR of Act. In original assessment made under section 143(3), Assessing Officer disallowed 75 per cent of Rs. 30,99,146, i.e. Rs. 23,24,360 as Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate in respect of this remittance was not attached with return of income but was furnished only on 20-5-2001. Thus, assessment was completed at total income of Rs. 2,84,26,590 on 22-2-2002. As per this assessment order, assessee is stated to be engaged in profession of imparting spiritual activities including teaching of meditation. 3. Subsequently, Assessing Officer came across one of these books at second-hand books market and found that John Gray was sole author and assessee was neither author nor co-author of book. Assessing Officer was of view that in view of these facts assessee was not entitled to deduction claimed and hence, after recording reasons, issued notice under section 148 of Act on 1-9-2003. assessee responded to notice by requesting Assessing Officer to treat original return as filed in compliance to notice under section 148 and also objected to reopening of assessment by citing certain judgments. Assessing Officer rejected objections also by drawing support from certain judgments. In particular, his stress was on fact that notice was within four years from end of relevant assessment year and hence, it was enough to enable Assessing Officer to reopen assessment if he had reason to believe that there was escapement. Further, according to him, even otherwise, reopening was on sound foundation of information gathered subsequent to assessment and i t was not on account of any change in opinion. On merits, he found that assessee had never authored any book during year and that granting status of co-author is not prerogative of author. According to him, rendering assistance in writing, lending moral support, suggesting theme or central idea etc. did not ipso facto entitle person status of co-author. He also held that assuming assessee was co-author, even then deduction could not be allowed as section 80RR was meant only for authors and not co- authors. He compared provisions of section 80RR with those of section 80QQA wherein, unlike section 80RR, definition of 'author' included joint author. Assessing Officer also referred to auditor's report wherein profession of assessee was mentioned as 'Imparting spiritual activities including teaching of meditation' and not writing of books. Thus, Assessing Officer withdrew deduction of Rs. 4,53,92,922 granted to assessee under section 80RR in original assessment. 4. CIT(A) upheld validity of reopening of assessment by observing that if same is reopened within four years from end of assessment year, it is enough if Assessing Officer is of opinion that income has escaped assessment. It is not material whether it was assessee who failed to disclose truly, or fully material for assessment. Further, with regard to change in opinion, CIT(A) observed that show-cause letters issued by Assessing Officer, in course of scrutiny assessment and other material on record including order sheet entries do not in anyway indicate that Assessing Officer enquired into fact whether assessee was professional author or not. Hence, question of framing any opinion does not arise and if no opinion was framed, question of changing it does not arise. Thus, he upheld reopening of assessment. On merits, CIT(A) raised as many as seven issues to come to final conclusion. In following paragraphs we briefly discuss these issues as also his reasoning and conclusion on each of those issues. 5. first issue considered by CIT(A) is whether book written by person on certain concepts, practices and ideas propounded by another person c n be said to be book authored by second person. This issue was approached by CIT(A) by discussing concept of joint authorship which in order to be called so, required three conditions to be fulfilled. On facts, he held that assessee cannot be called joint author. second question considered by CIT(A) was whether section 80RR envisaged granting of deduction to co-author and/or joint author. In this regard, he took note of definition of term 'author' given in section 80QQA and held that there is no scope to include joint authors and co-authors within meaning of word 'author' for purpose of section 80RR. third question was whether assessee scripted any portion of book. In this connection, he gave finding that there was no evidence whatsoever to show that assessee actually scripted any portion of book. In this connection, he gave finding that there was no evidence whatsoever to show that assessee actually scripted any portion of book. fourth issue considered was whether author has to necessarily write book abroad and publish same abroad to claim deduction under section 80RR. This issue, by CIT(A) was decided in favour of assessee by observing that what is required under law is that person should be professional author and remittance to India is attributable to his income derived by him in exercise of his profession abroad. He held that if on account of book written by resident in India and published in India is sold abroad for which he receives consideration in form of inward remittances in convertible foreign exchange, he would be entitled to such deduction. fifth question considered is whether assessee can be said to be professional author and whether receipts can be said to have been derived in exercise of his profession. In this connection, it was held that there is no evidence to show that assessee was professional writer at material time. CIT(A) also held that person does not become professional writer by just writing few chapters in one book. Even presuming that assessee was author, at best, CIT(A) held, he could be treated as casual or amateur author but not in any case, professional author. On facts, it was held that assessee was neither casual author, nor amateur author since there is no evidence to hold that he actually scripted few chapters. sixth question considered is whether assessee can be called professional artist within meaning of section 80RR. In this connection, CIT(A) observed that even presuming that assessee is skilled person, remittances received cannot be said to have been derived from profession of assessee as performing artist. In last issue, CIT(A) considered exact nature of receipt and held them to be revenue receipts. Finally, referring to observations of Supreme Court in case of Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1 on artificial and unduly latitudinarian rules of construction (on page 9 of report), CIT(A) held that assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80RR of Act. 6. learned counsel briefly apprised us of primary facts. In paragraph 2 of this order, we have mentioned about disallowance of part- deduction made by Assessing Officer at time of original assessment on account of late furnishing of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate. assessee had preferred appeal against this disallowance. CIT(A) vide his order dated 9-12-2002 allowed claim of assessee. learned counsel drew our specific attention to following observations made by CIT(A) in paragraph 4.9 of his order: ' facts of case showed that claim was genuinely made by appellant and for delay made by bank in issuing FIR certificate concerned, appellant cannot be penalised, particularly keeping in view fact that certificate was filed before Assessing Officer during scrutiny and before completion of assessment.' emphasis of learned counsel was on CIT(A)'s finding about genuineness of assessee's claim. He then referred to reasons recorded for reopening assessment (page 51 of paper book) wherein it was alleged that assessee was not author of any book. Referring to page 3 of t h e written submissions, it was submitted by learned counsel that assessee never claimed to be author of any book. All along his claim was to have been co-author or joint author. He then referred to order sheet entry dated 29-8-2003 in which reasons were recorded by Assessing Officer. In it, it is mentioned that whereas definition of word 'author' given in section 80QQA includes joint author, there is no such definition in section 80RR and deduction thereunder is available to authors alone. contention of learned counsel was that deduction under section 80QQA was available in respect of authors only, whereas deduction under section 80RR was in respect of income received in exercise of profession and it was not case of department that income was not received in exercise of profession. Thus, argument was that keeping in view findings of CIT(A) reproduced above and notings of Assessing Officer in order sheet entries, it was clearly change of opinion on part of Assessing Officer and on account of which assessment was reopened. ld. counsel then drew our attention to acknowledgements given by Mr. John Gray to assessee in respective books for assistance received by him from assessee in writing those books. Drawing support from judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd. AIR 1989 Delhi 63 it was argued that if there is intellectual contribution by two or more persons to composition of literary work then those persons have to be regarded as j o i n t authors. Thus, it was again emphasised that reopening of assessment was clearly on change of opinion and reliance was placed on judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT v. Mahesh Gum & Oil Industries [2007] 292 ITR 397. 7. On merits, main contention of learned counsel was that both, Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A), had taken very narrow view of meaning of word 'author'. To buttress his point that assessee did contribute positively towards writing of book, learned counsel took us through certificates of main author and also through acknowledgements in books. Our attention was drawn to Board's Circular No. 22, dated 17-7-1969 wherein it had been opined that provisions of section 80RR are designed to encourage successful authors, playwrights etc. in our country to project their activities outside India with view to contributing to greater understanding of our country and its culture abroad and also augmenting our foreign exchange resources. contention was that by assisting John Gray and Kenji Abe in writing books, assessee had contributed to greater understanding of our country and had also earned foreign exchange for country. Finally, learned counsel took us through written submissions placed on record wherein, besides above contentions, some other submissions are also made. These mainly consist of meanings of word 'author' given in Black's Law Dictionary, in Copyright Act, 1957, meaning of word 'art' and discussion on judgment in case of Najma Heptulla (supra). We shall revert to them later, if necessary. Thus, learned counsel concluded his arguments by summarising that assessment was reopened on change of opinion and hence invalid, that author's claim for deduction was as co-author, that term 'author' was not defined in section 80RR as deduction therein was in respect of income earned in exercise of profession and that it was not case of department that income earned by assessee was not in exercise of his profession as spiritual teacher. Thus, prayer was that reassessment so made be quashed and if held to be valid, then full deduction under section 80RR be granted as claimed by assessee. 8. learned Departmental Representative, with regard to reopening o f assessment, submitted that in original assessment, there was no enquiry by Assessing Officer with regard to fact whether assessee is author, co-author or neither. enquiry was with regard to remittances only. Subsequently, Assessing Officer made enquiry on internet, then recorded his reasons and furnished them to assessee also. Upon enquiry, Assessing Officer harboured bona fide belief that assessee was not entitled to impugned deduction and for that he also relied on provisions of section 80QQA. Referring to copies of titles on which deduction was claimed and also to acknowledgements therein, it was submitted that it was not apparent whether assessee was author or co-author of books. It was contended that assessee's reliance on judgment of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2002] 256 ITR 1 was misplaced as not only facts were different but also because it pertained to assessment year 1987-88, i.e., period prior to amendment in section 147. Instead, it was contended, judgment of Supreme Court in case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 was applicable in which it has been held that so long as ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceedings under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. Thus, learned Departmental Representative kly canvassed that reopening of assessment was valid. 9. On merits, learned Departmental Representative, at outset, referred to provisions of sections 80QQA and 80QQB. Our specific attention was drawn to Explanation given in both provisions wherein term 'author' was defined to include joint author unlike section 80RR wherein assessee was required to be only author. It was contended that in order to claim deduction under section 80RR assessee ought to be not only author but also professional author. To buttress this point, learned Departmental Representative also drew support from Board's Circular No. 22, dated 17-7- 1969. He referred to decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in case of Harsha Bhogle v. Assessing Officer [2003] 86 ITD 714 and in it, our specific attention was drawn to paragraphs 22 and 23. It was argued that as per said decision, two conditions were required to be fulfilled in order to claim deduction under section 80RR. first condition was that professionals mentioned in said section must project their activities outside India with view to contributing to greater understanding of our country and its culture abroad and secondly, augmenting our foreign exchange resources. According to learned Departmental Representative, first condition has not been fulfilled by assessee in present case. learned Departmental Representative then referred to paragraphs 6 to 10 in order of CIT(A) in which latter has dealt with various issues arising from controversy. These issues have been briefly narrated by us in paragraph 5 of this order and hence, do not repeat same here. In substance, learned Departmental Representative has supported conclusion reached by CIT(A) in each of issues and has emphasised that there is no evidence to show that assessee is author or joint author by profession. learned Departmental Representative referred to Form 3CD in tax audit report wherein nature of profession of assessee has been described as 'imparting spiritual activities including teaching of meditation.' Thus, it was reiterated that writing of books is not profession of assessee, there is no evidence of having written any book in past and there is no evidence of having written even portion of books in question and, therefore, he is not professional author and also not joint author as claimed by him. learned Departmental Representative then turned to Copyright Act, 1957 and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 ('CDPA' for short) of England. Referring to clauses (d), (y) and (z) of section 2 of Copyright Act which define expressions 'author', 'work' and 'work of joint authorship' respectively, it was contended that all these definitions contain common meaning of expressions defined and nowhere case of assessee fits into them. He also referred to titles of books on which deduction was claimed and submitted that nowhere did assessee's name appear either as author or co-author. learned Departmental Representative also referred to definitions of expressions 'author' and 'work of joint authorship' given in sections 9 and 10 of CDPA. argument was that simply giving ideas did not make one author. Only person who could exercise his right under Copyright Act could be author. It was also contended that context of Copyright Act required one to be not only author but professional author. For this contention reliance was placed on judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of H.P. Tourism Development Corpn. v. Union of India [1999] 238 ITR 38 and of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 174. learned Departmental Representative referred to certificates given by John Gray and Kenji Abe (pages 24 to 27 of Departmental Paper Book) to point out that there were inconsistencies in these certificates insofar as that at some place assessee was stated to have assisted John Gray and at other place he was referred to as co-author. Therefore, he questioned evidentiary value of these certificates and also alleged that certificates were given only to accommodate assessee. He also questioned as to why royalty was not shared with assessee by John Gray and why assessee was not party to agreement with publishers. Finally, responding to claim of assessee of being artist, it was submitted that there was no evidence to substantiate such claim and there was no evidence to show that assessee in any way promoted Indian culture abroad. Thus, concluding his arguments, learned Departmental Representative kly supported order of CIT(A). 10. We have duly considered rival contentions and material on record. So far as validity of reopening of assessment is concerned, we do not see much force in contentions of learned counsel. Admittedly, t h e assessment is reopened within four years from end of relevant assessment year. Therefore, irrespective of fact whether due enquiry was made or not in original assessment, assessee's case clearly falls under both, sub-clauses (i) and (iii) of clause (c) of Explanation 2 to section 147 of Act. Moreover, perusal of original assessment order dated 22-2-2002 clearly shows that Assessing Officer had accepted assessee's claim of co- authoring certain books for which income was received from persons not resident in India. He had accepted this claim without any enquiry. only enquiry he made was with regard to receipt of foreign remittances thus subjecting income to excessive relief without due enquiry. We do agree that even under amended provisions of section 147, change of opinion is not permitted, but in present case, on account of lack of enquiry on part of Assessing Officer, there was no formation of any opinion and hence, there is no question of changing it. Even otherwise, order-sheet entry recording reasons clearly reveal that Assessing Officer accidentally bounced into one of books claimed to have been co-authored by assessee. Not seeing assessee's name on book as co-author, prima facie belief was formed that assessee's claim may not be true. Thus, it is this accident which triggered issuance of notice under section 148 and not any change of opinion. So long as Assessing Officer acts in accordance with law, observations of CIT(A) in first round of appeal reproduced in paragraph 6 above makes no difference. Therefore, on due consideration of facts, we uphold validity of reopening of assessment. 11. So far as merits of issues are concerned, dispute revolves around provisions of section 80RR under which assessee has claimed deduction and which is denied by revenue authorities. Hence, it would be advantageous to reproduce said section below: ' 80RR. Deduction in respect of professional income from foreign sources in certain cases.-Where gross total income of individual resident in India, being author, playwright, artist, musician, actor or sportsman (including athlete), includes any income derived by him in exercise of his profession from Government of foreign State or any person not resident in India, there shall be allowed, in computing total income of individual, deduction from such income of amount equal to- (i) sixty per cent of such income for assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2001; (ii) forty-five per cent of such income for assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2002; (iii) thirty per cent of such income for assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2003; (iv) fifteen per cent of such income for assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2004, as is brought into India by, or on behalf of, assessee in conver-tible foreign exchange within period of six months from end of previous year or within such further period as competent authority may allow in this behalf and no deduction shall be allowed in respect of assessment year beginning on 1st day of April, 2005 and any subsequent assessment year equal to seventy-five per cent of such income, as is brought into India by, or on behalf of, assessee in convertible foreign exchange within period of six months from end of previous year or within such further period as competent authority may allow in this behalf: Provided that no deduction under this section shall be allowed unless assessee furnishes certificate, in prescribed form, along with return of income, certifying that deduction has been correctly claimed in accordance with provisions of this section. with provisions of this section. Explanation.-For purposes of this section, expression 'competent authority' means Reserve Bank of India or such other authority as is authorised under any law for time being in force for regulating payments and dealings in foreign exchange.' It would be first appropriate to analyse above provision and then see whether assessee's case fits into overall scheme of provision or not. 12. In order to claim deduction under section 80RR, plain reading of provisions show that following conditions need to be fulfilled: (a)The assessee should be individual resident in India; (b)The assessee should be author, playwright etc. as mentioned in provision; (c)The assessee's gross total income should include any income derived by him in exercise of his profession; (d)Such income should have been received from any foreign Government or any person not resident in India; (e)Such income is brought into India in convertible foreign exchange within specified period. So far as conditions (a), (d) and (e) are concerned, there is no dispute between parties. Further, in present case, amongst various categories mentioned in provision, claim of assessee is as author and alternatively as artist. Hence, our discussion would confine mainly to these two categories. With this brief prelude, let us proceed. 13. As mentioned in preceding paragraph, controversy revolves around conditions (b) and (c). revenue reads both conditions together to contend that in order to claim deduction, assessee should be professional author. To put it other way, emphasising on words 'in exercise of his profession' and linking them with various categories of professionals, it is argued that assessee should have derived income in his capacity as professional author. We are afraid, perhaps that is not intention underlying deduction under section 80RR. This can be judged by referring to some other provisions belonging to same genre in Chapter VI-A of Act. 14. Section 80Q grants deduction in respect of profits and gains from business of publication of books. Sub-section (3) of section 80Q specifies that 'books' shall not include newspapers, journals, magazines, diaries, brochures, tracts, pamphlets and other publications of similar nature by whatever name called. Section 80QQA grants deduction in respect of professional income of authors of text books in Indian languages. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 80QQA specifies that book should be either in nature of dictionary, thesaurus or encyclopedia or is one that has been prescribed or recommended as text book, or included in curriculum, by any University, for degree or post-graduate course of that University. Section 80QQB grants deduction in respect of royalty income, etc. of authors of book being work of literary, artistic or scientific nature. This is contained in main provision in sub- section (1) itself. However, clause (b) of Explanation to section 80QQB specifies that 'books' shall not include brochures, commentaries, diaries, guides, journals, magazines etc. If one analyses these three provisions, it can be noticed that deductions are in respect of writing 'books' or publishing them. Further, Legislature has not left it to tax authorities or tax payers to interpret what book means for purpose of deductions in respective provisions. This is because popular and dictionary meaning of word 'book' can be very wide to include any writing, record, bunch of loose sheets etc. Each of three provisions have categorically specified what 'book' would include and what is not included. As against this, consider provisions of section 80RR. Despite fact that it grants deduction to author, word 'book' nowhere appears in entire provision, leave aside explaining what word 'book' would include or will not include. Here Legislature has left it totally open as to in which form creation of author can be. It can be either book, journal, magazine, newspaper, etc. If this is so, then creation can be result of freelancing or freelance writing. In our-considered view, freelancer is not and need not be professional author. As matter of fact, though revenue has been at pains to repeatedly tell us that person should be professional author to claim deduction, it has not been explained what it means by professional author. Of course, we have observed above that in order to claim deduction under section 80RR, one need not be professional author. But for t h e sake of completeness of present discussion we make attempt to explain it. professional is person who engages himself in activity which requires special skills, advanced learning etc. like that of law, medicine, accountancy etc. As per Webster's Dictionary it also means person who makes some activity not usually followed for gain, such as sport, source of his livelihood. Thus, if person earns some livelihood by authoring something is professional author. As per same dictionary, freelance writer is one who is not under contract for regular work but sells his writings to any buyer. In our opinion, both, professional author and freelance writer, can claim deduction under section 80RR. 15. Having said this, let us understand significance of words 'in exercise of his profession' occurring in section 80RR. If person writes anything connected with profession he is engaged in and derives income by publishing it abroad, he will be entitled to deduction under section 80RR. Thus, if chartered accountant writes something on accountancy and derives income by getting it published abroad, he will be entitled to deduction under section 80RR. With this illustration, it would also be pertinent to draw distinction between deduction under sections 80QQB and 80RR. Section 80QQB also contains words 'in exercise of his profession.' Therefore, if chartered accountant in above illustration wants to claim deduction under section 80QQB, his writing should be in book form as explained in Explanation to that section, he should possess copyright over that book and income should be as result of assignment or grant of his interests in copyright. It is not that because of use of words 'in exercise of his profession', person should be professional author. Or else, how does one explain that even work of scientific nature qualifies for deduction under section 80QQB. In other words, it is pre- supposed that only person skilled in particular branch of science can produce scientific work. It is further pre-supposed that if he is, say, botanist or expert in management science, then he may not be professional author, but has written book on subject of topical interest concerning line of his expertise, then he will be entitled to deduction under section 80QQB subject to conditions mentioned earlier. Reverting back to illustration of chartered accountant, if he writes book on accountancy and publishes it abroad but by virtue of his agreement with publisher has no copyright in book. However, publisher has remunerated him with lump sum amount for writing of book. Simultaneously, same chartered accountant writes article on some topic in Income-tax and article is published in journal abroad. publishers of journal remunerate him for article. In our opinion, both incomes of chartered accountant would be eligible for deduction under section 80RR. income from writing of book will not qualify for deduction under section 80QQB because it is not derived on account of assignment or grant of interests in copyright. fact that even articles published in journal qualifies for deduction under section 80RR is not only explained by us in paragraph 14 above, but is also clarified by Board in its Circular No. 22. dated 17-7-1969. Thus, in this paragraph we have explained significance of words 'in exercise of his profession.' As mentioned earlier, these words occur in section 80QQA, sections 80QQB and 80RR. By analysing provisions of sections 80QQB and 80RR, we have come to conclusion that in order to claim deduction under either of provisions, one need not be professional author. He may have authored book or article in relation to any profession carried on by him. 16. We now consider whether word 'author' occurring in section 80RR includes co-author or joint author. We will restrict ourselves using only one expression, i.e., co-author as, both expressions have almost same meaning, though there may be very thin line of difference between two, if there is any. As matter of fact, Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary does not contain expression 'joint author', but has given meaning of co-author as joint author or collaborator. In paragraph 14, we have seen distinction between provisions of sections 80QQB and 80RR. From tenor of two provisions, it is quite evident that conditions in section 80QQB are more stringent than in section 80RR insofar as that because deduction under former provision is confined to writing of book as defined in Explanation, Legislature thought it fit to define word 'author'. On other hand, because deduction under section 80RR is not confined to writing book, but includes any writing, Legislature deemed it appropriate to leave word undefined, thereby providing some latitude to include anyone who has collaborated with main author. Of course, word 'collaborator' has not to be stretched too far to include anyone who has either inspired writer in any way, or it should not include each and everyone who has assisted like typist, proof-reader etc. Here, word 'collaborator' has to be given somewhat restricted meaning to include only those who have positively contributed to ideo-logy of subject written about. In this connection, we can do no better than what Delhi High Court has observed in case of Najma Heptulla (supra) paragraph 27 which we reproduce below: ' literary work consists of matter or material or subject which is expressed in language and is written down. Both subject-matter and language are important. It is difficult to comprehend, or to accept, that when two people agree to produce work where one provides material, on his own, and other expresses same in language which is presentable to public then entire credit for such undertaking or literary work should go to person who has transcribed thoughts of another. To me it appears that if there is intellectual contribution by two or more persons pursuant to pre-concerted joint design to composition of literary work then those persons have to be regarded as joint authors.' Further, under section 80QQB, author of book and joint author, whosoever is claiming deduction, needs to have copyright. Under section 80RR there is no need to have copyright and hence, for that reason also word 'author' is left undefined so that wider meaning can be given to include collaborator who has contributed intellectually to writing. Thus, in our view, word 'author' in section 80RR includes co-author also. Before we end this entire discussion on section 80RR, it would be pertinent to note now omitted provisions in section 88 of Act. Prior to its omission with effect from 1-4-2003, said section provided for higher rebate in income-tax in case of author, playwright etc. expression used to provide such rebate were '. . . in case of individual, whose income, derived from exercise of his profession as author, playwright. . . .'. From this provision, it can be seen that profession as author, playwright. . . .'. From this provision, it can be seen that where Legislature intended to grant benefit only to professional authors, provision was worded accordingly. On other hand, in section 80QQA, section 80QQB and section 80RR it is differently worded so as to include non- professional authors as well. Thus, now we end discussion on purport of section 80RR to conclude that in order to claim deduction under said section, person need not be professional author, he need not have written only book but may have contributed to journals, magazines etc. by way of articles. write-ups should be in exercise of any profession carried on by him and it would include co-author or collaborator also as explained above. 17. In light of discussion in preceding paragraphs, let us consider facts of case on hand. At outset, we have already held that in order to claim deduction under section 80RR, person need not be professional author. Therefore, we need not go into facts concerning this aspect of matter. next aspect to be considered is whether assessee can be regarded as co-author or not and if yes, whether he has co-authored book in exercise of his profession. Admittedly, and on which revenue authorities have placed reliance, nature of profession of assessee as mentioned in audit report is 'Imparting spiritual activities including teaching of meditation.' Again admittedly, none of titles bear name of assessee as co-author. However, let us consider titles. One of them is 'How to get what you want and want what you have'. It is claimed to be practical guide to personal success. In its 'Acknowledgements' section, John Gray, main author has acknowledged support of several persons in bringing out book. assistance rendered by these persons ranges from continuous love and support, to assistance in publishing book in more than forty languages, to hard work of his staff, to assistance rendered by workshop facilitators and so on. It can be seen that these persons have extended either moral support, or rendered ministerial assistance, or provided necessary logistics in bringing out book. However, for assessee, acknowledgement is in following words: ' I thank my dear friend Kaleshwar, who directly assisted me in writing various sections of this book. It clearly would not have happened without his help.' [Emphasis supplied] above acknowledgement is part of book itself and is dated 1-11- 1998. One of allegations of revenue is that John Gray gave certificates only to accommodate assessee and were received much after publication of book. True, when his claim was disputed by revenue authorities, assessee may have called for additional certificates to reinforce his claim. But above acknowledgement is certainly not later-date action. It is part of book and what else highlighted words in Mr. John Gray's acknowledgement (supra), indicate other than fact that assessee actually wrote certain sections. next title is 'Practical Miracles for Mars and Venus.' Here also, John Gray has thanked several persons for same type of assistance as in case of earlier title. These thanks are in simple words. But for assessee, Mr. John Gray had to say following: ' special thanks to Anupati Kaleshwar, whose wisdom and experience assisted me greatly in developing practical understanding of natural healing energy.' [Emphasis supplied]. above acknowledgement which again, is part of book clearly indicates that assessee's support is not in any abstract form nor is it logistic support for publishing book. It is direct contribution to subject-matter of book and hence, case of assessee gets direct support from observations of Delhi High Court in case of Najma Heptulla (supra) reproduced in paragraph 16 above. Besides above, certificates also clearly indicate that assessee was co-author of books written by John Gray of USA and Kenji Abe of Japan. It needs to be appreciated that all these books are on spiritual teaching and art of meditation. It is common knowledge that art of meditation has originated from India and is almost as old as humanity. India being country of great sages and rishis, spiritual teachings and activities have transcended down centuries and we have innumerable spiritual Gurus, assessee being one of them. Each one may have his own way of doing meditation, teaching meditation and imparting other spiritual training. It is through these teachings John Gray has tried to guide readers on various aspects of life. In order to do it effectively, he took ideas and concepts from assessee and made his work possible. Thus, it is difficult to deny fact that, assessee has co-authored book in exercise of his profession of imparting spiritual activities and teaching meditation. This fulfils one of conditions mentioned in Board's Circular No. 22, dated 17-7-1969 and which is to contributing to greater understanding of our country and its culture abroad. Of course, we may hasten to add that as provision stands today, fulfilment of this condition is not pre-requisite. This is because athlete who is also entitled to deduction under section 80RR, by participating in international event, does not spread culture of India. But it is participation in international event that makes him eligible for deduction. This aspect has further been explained by Board in its Circular No. 281, dated 22-9-1980. It automatically follows that if doctor, lawyer, chartered accountant or any such professional, authors or co-authors paper in international seminar or conference and receives some remuneration as result of publication of paper in journal, income so received will be eligible for deduction under section 80RR. Accordingly, for present case, we hold that assessee was co-author as claimed by him and he co-authored books in exercise of his profession. 18. We now deal with various issues raised by and dealt with by CIT(A). We have narrated these issues in paragraph 5 of this order. first issue is with regard to joint authorship wherein he has listed three conditions in order to satisfy test of joint authorship. We do not have any quarrel with conditions laid down by him. In fact, process of collaboration has been mentioned as one of conditions. In paragraph 16, we too have discussed process of collaboration and in paragraph 17 we have given finding as to how and why assessee can be said to have collaborated with Mr. John Gray. Therefore, in our view test of joint authorship stands fulfilled. In paragraph 6.6 of his order, CIT(A) has merely mentioned that assessee cannot be said to be joint author and according to him, assessee also does not claim to be so. This is wrong finding of fact. Right from beginning assessee has been claiming co-authorship. Moreover, CIT(A) has not shown as to how and why assessee does not satisfy test of joint authorship. Thus, merely narrating norms of joint authorship and simply denying assessee's claim without any discussion does not advance case of revenue. next issue is whether section 80RR envisages co-author within meaning of word 'author'. We have dealt with this issue in detail in paragraph 16 above, to hold that section 80RR does envisage inclusion of co-author within meaning of word 'author'. third issue is whether there is any evidence to hold that assessee had actually scripted portion of book. This issue has b e e n discussed by us in paragraph 17 of our order to hold that there is satisfactory evidence of assessee actually having written portion of book in form of acknowledgement by Mr. John Gray in book itself. next issue is whether author has to necessarily write book abroad and publish same abroad for claiming deduction under section 80RR. This issue has been decided by CIT(A) in favour of assessee and hence needs no further discussion. Nonetheless, we have elaborately discussed issue in paragraphs 14 and 15 of this order. next issue is whether assessee can be said to be professional author and can receipts said to have been received in exercise of his profession. This issue is also discussed in detail by us in paragraphs 14 and 15 to hold that in order to claim deduction under section 80RR, person need not be professional author and that it would be sufficient if book or article is authored in exercise of any profession carried out by him. sixth issue is whether assessee can be called professional artist. As such this issue may not need any discussion as we have held assessee to be co-author eligible for deduction. But since revenue authorities have dealt with this issue, we shall discuss it briefly for sake of completeness of discussion on section 80RR. CIT(A) has denied claim on ground that assessee cannot be called performing artist. Well, in our opinion, artist can claim deduction under this section in two ways. Let us take illustration of any noted artist, say Zakir Hussain, famous tabla player. If he performs abroad and receives income from non-resident, he would be eligible for deduction. Secondly, if he writes book on nuances of tabla or article on topic concerning classical music and if these works are published abroad and receives income from non-resident, then also he would be entitled to deduction under section 80RR. Under both circumstances, Zakir Hussain has projected Indian culture abroad, earned foreign exchange abroad and both activities have been carried out by him in exercise of his profession. Not only that, assuming that noted musician is not expert in scripting his thoughts on tabla or classical music, then he may take assistance of writer to translate his thoughts into words to make it worthy of reading. In that case, he may be regarded either as author or co-author and will be eligible for deduction under section 80RR. In instant case, assessee practices art of meditation, art of miracle healing and other spiritual activities. This fact is borne out by several evidences placed on record and department has also not disputed this fact. Every Guru has his own way of practising this art and his own way of imparting training. Ultimate goal is to teach and learn art of living and to keep oneself healthy, mentally as well as physically. outcome of practice may have scientific basis, but in any case practice and process remains art and in that sense assessee can be regarded artist. It should also not be forgotten that these practices project India's culture abroad and, therefore, any income from non-resident for performing this art abroad or writing about it will qualify for deduction under section 80RR. last issue dealt with by CIT(A) is whether receipt is capital in nature or revenue in nature. assessee has not seriously contested this issue and we also hold it to be revenue receipt as it is received in course of exercising of his profession. Lastly, CIT(A) cited decision of Supreme Court in case of Keshavji Ravji & Co. (supra) to contend that undue latitudinarian rules of construction should not be applied to grant relief to assessee. Well, in our opinion, and as discussed by us in paragraphs 14 to 16, Legislature itself has provided necessary latitude to allow deduction in those cases where persons possessing special skills project India's image and culture abroad, participate and compete in international events abroad and earn foreign exchange for country. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to apply such latitudinarian rules of construction. 19. We now deal with some of arguments of learned Departmental Representative. His argument regarding requirement of being professional author to claim deduction has been extensively dealt with in paragraph 15 above. significant argument made by him was that unless person can exercise his right under Copyright Act, he cannot be regarded to be author and he has also questioned as to why Mr. John Gray did not share his royalty with assessee and hence, assessee cannot be regarded to be author or co-author. We are unable to appreciate this argument. As to who should have copyright is matter of agreement between parties who have collaborated with each other in bringing out book, including publisher. For example, copyright of eighth edition of 'The Law and Practice of Income-tax' by Kanga and Palkhivala was with trust called Mother Trust. publishers were N.M. Tripathi Private Ltd. On other hand, copyright for ninth edition of same book is with publishers of book namely, Butterworths. If arguments of learned Departmental Representative were to be accepted, then for both editions, Kanga and Palkhivala cannot be regarded as authors as they did not possess copyrights. Compared to this, Shri D.M. Harish as author of his book on income-tax retained copyright with him. Thus, point we are trying to drive home is that it is not that in all cases author only retains copyright. It depends, as mentioned earlier, on agreement between parties. Therefore, definitions referred to by him in Copyright Act have no relevance for purposes of deduction under section 80RR of Act, much less, defini- tions given in CDPA referred to by him. Thus, these arguments of learned Departmental Representative have no force. 20. In final analysis we hold that reopening of assessment under section 147 of Act is valid, but assessee is co-author of books from which he has earned income in convertible foreign exchange from persons not resident in India and is eligible for deduction under section 80RR of Act. 21. In result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed. II. ITA No. 355/Hyd./2004 (Assessment year: 1999-2000): 22. In this appeal also assessee has challenged validity of reopening of assessment. During this year, return was processed under section 143(1) on 30-11-1999 and notice under section 148 was issued on 1-9- 2003, that is, within four years from end of assessment year. circumstances leading to issuance of impugned notice were same as in assessment year 2000-01. Therefore, following our order for assessment year 2000-01, we uphold validity of reopening of assessment. In fact, in this year, revenue's case is on ker footing because assessment was not under section 143(3) but merely return, was processed under section 143(1) and hence, there was no question of forming any opinion at all. Thus, first ground of assessee is dismissed. 23. next issue relates to denial of deduction under section 80RR of Act. deduction claimed by assessee was of Rs. 3,29,79,675. entire deduction was disallowed, and reasons for such disallowance were same as in assessment year 2000-01, viz., that assessee never co-authored any book and even if he was co-author, section 80RR did not permit co- authors to claim deduction. submissions of parties were same as for assessment year 2000-01. These issues have been extensively dealt with by us in our order for assessment year 2000-01 and accordingly, for same reasons we hold that assessee was co-author of books mentioned by him, and that income was received by him in convertible foreign exchange from persons resident out of India in exercise of his profession of imparting spiritual training. Accordingly, he is entitled to deduction under section 80RR and we grant same. 24. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. III. ITA No. 1236/Hyd./2005 (Assessment year 2001-02): 25. In this appeal, assessee has raised same grounds as for two years dealt with by us above. In this year, original assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 4-3-2003 allowing deduction under section 80RR as claimed by assessee. Subsequently, circumstances which triggered reopening of assessments for assessment years 2000-01 and 1999-2000, also led to reopening of assessment year under consideration by issuance of notice under section 148 on 1-9-2003, i.e., within four years from end of assessment year. For this year also, on perusal of original assessment, we find that there was no due enquiry about authorship or co-authorship of assessee with regard to any book. case being that of under assessment or excessive relief, assessment was validly reopened and hence, we uphold same. 26. On merits, Assessing Officer found that during year under consideration, part of foreign income was received by assessee for authoring book called 'Powers of Vaastu' and hence, deduction with regard to this book was allowed. However, with regard to books where co-authorship was claimed by assessee, deduction was denied for same reasons as in assessment years 2000-01 and 1999-2000. issues arising from denial of this deduction have been extensively dealt with by us in our order for assessment year 2000-01 and following our order for that year, we direct Assessing Officer to grant full deduction under section 80RR, even on books co- authored by assessee. 27. In result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 28. Summarising result of entire order, all three appeals of assessee stand partly allowed. *** A. KALESHWAR v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX