Bhogle, Bedi: Artistes?

Mumbai, Sept. 30: If you have proficiency in English, some knowledge of cricket and do not “imagine anything in the mind”, are you an actor?

Bombay High Court will try to settle the question that has pitted cricket commentators against the income-tax department.

Commentator Harsha Bhogle has challenged in the high court a tribunal’s ruling that television anchors could not be treated as artistes and extended tax relief. Section 80 RR of the Income-Tax Act allows 75 per cent deduction on taxable income from abroad for authors, sportspersons, musicians, actors and artistes.

Bhogle approached the court after his appeal against an earlier judgment was rejected by the appellate wing of the tribunal.

“While performing his duty, he was not doing any acting but he was passing on to the public something which was, in fact, actually happening during the course of the match,” the tribunal ruled while disposing of Bhogle’s petition.

Many cricket fans familiar with the histrionics and off-the-cuff remarks in the commentary box might wish the tribunal’s observations were true, but the commentators have no doubt they are performers.

What has galled them more are some of the observations of the tribunal which told Bhogle that anybody with “proficiency in English” and “some knowledge of cricket” can do what he does. It added that he was not doing “any creative work, exhibiting human skill, imagining anything in his mind.”

Bhogle was not available for comment, but his one-time co-anchor Charu Sharma said: “It is ridiculous the way they are describing anchors. It is certainly a creative work.” Anybody with knowledge of cricket cannot do this. It requires certain enhanced skills to keep the audience/viewers enthralled. It is a performance in its own right.”

Mandira Bedi, whose 2003 World Cup performance changed the face of the commentary studio and who flits between being an actor and presenter, agreed with Sharma but added that it was time the ambiguity was cleared.

“Many actors are anchors, so where does one draw the line? Plus, anchoring requires a certain performing skill. It is a highly creative area where your improvisations, body language and presentation skills, which go way beyond language proficiency, can make or break a show. All the rules of public entertainment apply to television presentation,” she said.

But the IT Tribunal thinks otherwise. “Shri Bhogle is not practising any particular art. He is a commentator of cricket matches which has nothing to do with the term ‘arts’. He is also not an artiste because artiste is a professional performer, i.e., a singer or a dancer. He is neither a singer nor a dancer. He is only explaining the performance of each player while commenting on TV.

Therefore, he is exhibiting information which cannot be compared with public entertainment,” it said.

The tribunal added that “the assessee was not indulging in any of the activities which would contribute to the greater understanding of India and its culture abroad”.

The dispute is a long-standing one. Amitabh Bachhan was also disallowed tax sops as television anchor on the same ground. “Bachchan was told that though he is one of the most popular actors in the country, his role in Kaun Banega Crorepati was not that of an actor but that of an anchor. If he used his acting skills to make the show a success, it did not change the job he was assigned,” said an official in the legal cell of the Mumbai income-tax department.

Sachin Tendulkar was told that his income from sources other than sporting activity would not get tax benefits under the same section.

The high court will hear the case next week.