TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chan, respondent-assessee and also his brother Sri.A.H.Khais for the block period 1988-89 to 1997-98. We have heard the appeals relating to all the three assessees together and are disposing of the same by separate judgments. 2. Search was conducted in the premises of the respondent- assessee on 29.7.1997 wherein several documents and accounts were seized by the Income Tax department. Pursuant to notice under Section 158BC of the Act, assessee filed return in Form 2B returning undisclosed income for the entire block period totaling Rs.38.58 lakhs. However, the Assessing Officer based on materials received during search in the premises of the respondent-assessee as well as the distributor namely, Sri.P.D.Abraham, Swargachitra Films, completed assessment on a total undisclosed income of Rs.1,29,43,770/-. On appeal filed by the assessee, the first appellate authority substantially allowed the appeal by deleting most of the additions made in the assessment. The Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals against the orders of the first appellate authority. The Tribunal by dismissing appeal filed by both sides sustained the order of the first appellate authority. It is against this o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... persons have so much of extensive business connections and, therefore, the records seized from both the assessees and the statements recorded from both of them relate to one and the same transaction i.e. the income and expenditure from film making, direction and in distribution. We are very conscious of the fact that the appellate jurisdiction of this court under Section 260A is limited to substantial questions of law arising from orders of the Tribunal. The contention raised by counsel for the assessee that concurrent findings on appreciation of evidence recorded by two appellate authorities normally should not be interfered by this court to reach a different conclusion again by reappraising the evidence is quite a sound principle of law. However, the contention raised by Senior counsel for the Revenue is that when assessment of undisclosed income is based on concrete evidence received from the documents and accounts seized from the residence of assessee and the film distributor above referred, the Tribunal's refusal to uphold the assessment without any basis or material is a perverse finding which gives rise to a question of law. We find force in this contention because when blo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence. In other words, the evidence received in the course of search from the assessee can be combined with other evidence collected by the Assessing Officer which is relatable to the evidence recovered in search. We have already noticed that the evidence recovered from the distributor namely, Sri.P.D.Abraham and the evidence recovered from the assessee in search conducted on both of them under Section 132 of the Act relate to the transactions between them and pertain to production, direction and distribution of the same movies which are several in number specifically stated in the assessment orders of both the assessees. 6. Even though every item of undisclosed income assessed but deleted by the Tribunal is separately contested in this appeal, we feel there is no scope for interference with Tribunal's order cancelling estimation of profit or disallowance of expenditure made. In our view, these are in the realm of appreciation of evidence and materials and we do not want to sit in appeal over Tribunal's orders on appraisal of evidence and the conclusions drawn by them therefrom. We, therefore, co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easoning and logic adopted by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal which expect clandestine accounts maintained by the assessee and the distributor to contain their names and addresses for believing it. Further, they also expect a confirmation statement by the assessee against his own interest. It is one thing to say that sworn statement given can be relied on as evidence under Section 132(4) of the Act and another thing to say that documentary evidence requires confirmation from the assessee against his own interest for the officer to make assessment. In our view, the approach of the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal is absolutely contrary to the scheme of block assessment under Chapter XIVB which can be made based on convincing evidence recovered in the course of search as provided under Section 158BB of the Act. There can be no controversy that both were engaged in massive suppression of income and they themselves conceded the same by disclosing undisclosed income of Rs.43 lakhs by the distributor and Rs.38.75 lakhs by the assessee for the block period. It is in this context correctness of assessment has to be considered. The assumption by the C.I.T.(Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of the additions in the case of the distributor by accepting the contention that unaccounted payment to film producer namely, respondent herein stands established by evidence recovered during search and statements recorded from the said assessee. Going by our findings in that case we have to necessarily conclude that assessee is paid actual amount stated in the realisation statement sent by the said distributor and recovered from the assessee's premises. We, therefore, do not find any justification for the first appellate authority or the Tribunal to cancel the addition. We, therefore, allow the appeal on this issue by reversing the order of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and by restoring the addition of Rs.10 lakhs towards undisclosed income in respect of the film "No.1 Snehatheeram Bangalor North". 9. Even though Revenue has serious objection against several additions deleted by the Tribunal, we feel there is no scope for interfering with the concurrent findings of the two appellate authorities. Further, the dispute with regard to the deletion of main addition Rs.24,35,528/-, we notice the finding of the first appellate authority as well as Tribunal ....