TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Section 292C by the AO and CIT(A) is also not correct. Provisions of Section 292C are applicable in a case where a search was conducted or certain documents were requisitioned. The provisions were applicable only in the hands of the searched person. Assessee having been not covered by the provisions of Section 132 or 132A, the said provisions of 292C does not apply. Moreover, the assessment order was not passed even u/s. 153C. Therefore, the addition cannot be sustained in the hands of assessee only because certain documents stated to have been filed for the purpose of marketing the cinema and not the actual expenditure cannot be considered for making an addition in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, the grounds of assessee are allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case. 2. The AO ought not to have added an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- being cash paid to M/s. R.R. Movie Makers as income of the assessee. Invoking the provisions of u/s. 292C of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the order of the AO in addition an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/-. 4. The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirm the addition on an entirely differed premise ignoring the fact that the AO has confirmed the addition based on the presumption u/s. 292C. 5. The Appellate Commissioner can not draw inference on a different parameters, without following due process of law. 6. Any other grounds which the appellant may urge either at or before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not correct. Ld. DR however, while justifying the action of the AO submitted that provisions of Section 292C(2) will apply and supported the orders. 6. We have considered the issue and examined. The addition in the hands of Shri G. Mahesh Babu, which was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench (wherein AM is also co-author) has considered the same documents, as under: 34. The only other ground that survives for consideration is in ITA No.58/Hyd/2015, wherein, vide ground of appeal No.5, assessee has challenged the addition of ₹ 2 crores made as undisclosed income. 35. Briefly, the facts are, in the course of search and siezure operations conducted in the case of Shri Jetti Venakta Phanindra Reddy, producer of the Film Business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear. Though the assessee challenged the addition in appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition more or less adopting the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. 36. Learned Authorised Representative s submissions while contesting the addition are two-fold. Firstly, loose sheets seized from a third party, will have no evidentiary value, hence cannot form basis for any addition. He submitted, assessee has received his remuneration for the concerned movie entirely in cheque which is duly reflected in his bank account as well as books of account. He submitted, producer s books of account also reflect the same amount. He submitted both assessee as well as the producer appearing before the Assessing Officer have denied of any cash transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d party, who happens to be producer of a movie in which assessee has acted. On a perusal of the said seized document, a copy of which is at page 3 of the paper-book, we find it contains cash payments made to some persons, one amongst them being the assessee. Admittedly, apart from this document, no other evidence/material was found or has been brought on record to demonstrate that cash payment of ₹ 2 crore was actually made to assessee. More importantly, even though a search operation was also carried out in the case of assessee, no incriminating material was found. It is also a fact on record that pursuant to summons issued, both the assessee as well as the producer of the movie appeared before the Assessing Officer and denied of hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, against assessee s payment no date is mentioned. Further, the payment dates are in sequence. It is to be noted, as per the seized document, the payment immediately after assessee is ₹ 10 lakhs to Puri Jagannadh in February, 2011. Since, all subsequent payments are in chronological order, assessee s contention that payment made to him, if at all, is prior to February, 2011 is acceptable. Keeping these facts in view when the Bench made a specific query to Learned Departmental Representative to explain how Assessing Officer has correlated the payment to the impugned assessment year, he has no valid answer for the same. Therefore, even accepting for argument s sake that contents of seized document are correct, but certainly, it canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
