TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h regard to addition of Rs. 3 lakhs received towards 16MM rights. (v) The CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 6,17,678 as unexplained expenditure though it was already included in the amount of expenditure considered by the CIT(A). 3. The Revenue's grievances are as under: (i) Reduction in receipt of Rs. 5,27,19,500 as against the computation of the Assessing Officer at Rs. 5,42,46,500. (ii) The CIT(A) erred in re-computation of expenditure and thereby reducing the addition towards unexplained expenditure. (iii) The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition towards unexplained investment made in the film "RAA" under the banner Sri Sai Movies as there is nexus of the regular business of the assessee by changing the nomenclature by cash credits u/s. 68 of the IT Act. (iv) The CIT(A) ought to have upheld the unexplained expenditure without allowing the deduction towards capitals and creditors on the basis of figures available on the trial balances. 4. The assessee also raised an additional ground which reads as follows: (i) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in determin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifference Rs. 15,27,000 9. Thus, he has reduced Rs. 15,27,000 from the gross receipts considered by the Assessing Officer and arrived at Rs. 5,27,19,500 (Rs. 5,42,46,500 - Rs. 15,27,000). Against this computation, the Department is having grievance. 10. The Assessing Officer computed the expenditure relating to block period at Rs. 4,88,87,784/- as follows: Sl. No. Head of Expenditure Seized material No. And relevant page No. Amount (Rs.) 1. Artists Remuneration A/SRB/44 - page No. 78 1,83,84,972 2. Battas A/SRB/44 - page No. 88 7,87,100 3. Other expenditure A/SRB/44 - page No. 85 2,13,73,834 4. Technicians remuneration A/SRB/44 - page No. 80 78,87,438 5. Rent paid to Jayabheri Guest House AA/SRB/5 - page No.76 60,000 6. Expenditure incurred during the period 22.3.2000 to 24.5.2000 A/SRB/27 3,20,440 7. Expenditure incurred on direction department during the period 1.2.2000 to 29.5.2000 A/SRB/40 - page No.47 74,000 Total expenditure determined 4,88,87,784 11. The CIT(A) considered the expenditure at Rs. 4,48,84,521. This is for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from M/s. Krishna Financier, Anantapur where his wife is a partner. The Assessing Officer verified his books of account and found that no other transaction is relating to the assessee. The Assessing Officer also verified Sri Sunku Ramesh Babu who stated that his initial capital was Rs. 50,000 and there was no further investment. Thus the Assessing Officer considered the loans and capital at Rs. 1,03,25,000 and advances received from distributors as per the seized material at Rs. 1,43,13,000. Before the CIT(A) the assessee stated that the amount taken from Sri A. Mallikarjuna is at Rs. 1,22,00,000 and not Rs. 7 lakhs and due credit is to be given to Rs. 1,15,00,000. The CIT(A) not given credit towards this claim of the assessee. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us. 17. Further before the CIT(A) the assessee pleaded that Sunku Ramesh Babu has introduced capital of Rs. 37,00,770 as against Rs. 50,000 considered by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the CIT(A) given credit at Rs. 36,50,770 on this count. Against this the Department is having grievance. 18. Regarding B. Suresh, the assessee pleaded that the capital contribution was Rs. 12,28,508 as against Rs. 50,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Gemini Television Ltd. 12. Letter dated 2.12.2000 of the appellant herein addressed to M/s. Prasad film Laboratories, Hyderabad/ Madras. 13. Letter dated 30.7.2008 of Prasad film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., addressed to the appellant herein. 14. Letter dated 30.7.2008 of the appellant addressed to M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 23. At the outset, we would like to adjudicate the issue relating to admission of additional evidence. The learned AR filed a petition seeking admission of additional evidence and submitted that the Assessing Officer not carried on enquiry in proper perspective though various names appear in the seized material. He submitted that for the purpose of proper administration of justice additional evidences are to be admitted and the matter may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. He submitted that these evidences are not filed on earlier occasion as the assessee was not provided with a copy of the statement recorded from Sri A. Mallikarjuna. Further the assessee could not file the above details as the business of the assessee firm was closed in the year 2000 itself and the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r it is also not a case where the Tribunal required any document to enable it to determine the question of income. It is purely discretion of the Tribunal to permit additional evidences to be adduced to enable it to pass order or, in its opinion, if there is any substantial cause for additional evidences. The discretion to receive additional evidence is to be exercised only when any point is required to be cleared up in the interest of justice. This power is given to the Tribunal has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly in order to advance the interest of justice. Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963 is not intended to allow the assessee who has been unsuccessful throughout appeal proceedings and to patch all the weak parts of his case or to fill up omissions. It is well settled that a party guilty of remissness and gross negligence, as in this case, is not entitled to indulgence being shown to adduce additional evidence. The assessee in this case had ample opportunities and year after year he was given opportunities by the authorities below to produce material so that assessment could be made on consideration of the material placed by him. To admit the additional evidence, we must be s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i A. Mallikarjuna. But the facts brought on record show that he has categorically stated before the Assessing Officer that he has advanced only Rs. 2,00,000 as loan and the firm M/s. Krishna Financiers, Anantapur where his wife is a partner, advanced Rs. 5 lakhs. The statement recorded form him was u/s. 131 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also verified the books of account and found that the advance of Rs. 7 lakhs is correct. On the basis of this, due credit was given to that extent. Before us the assessee tried to make a case by filing additional evidences. As we have rejected the additional evidences itself, in our opinion, whatever the assessee stated before us cannot be considered. On the other hand, the plea of the assessee that due credit is to be given to the tune of Rs. 115 lakhs as investment by Sri A. Mallikarjuna could be considered only in the event of assessment of this amount in the hands of Sri A. Mallikarjuna and reaching its finality. In other words, if this amount is duly assessed in the hands of Sri A. Mallikarjuna as his income, then taxing the same in the hands of the assessee would amount to double addition of the same amount. It cannot be permitted. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....7.2000 to 25.11.2000, corresponding expenditure is to be considered for this period only. Accordingly, the total expenditure for this period is to be considered at Rs. 4,48,84,521 and this is supported by the seized material. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is confirmed. This ground is rejected. 32. Regarding the confirmation addition of Rs. 31.5 lakhs towards CD/DVD/satellite/overseas rights as against Rs. 25 lakhs, the AR submitted that the assessee has received only Rs. 25 lakhs as per the seized material and there is no other evidence towards this addition. He also drew our attention to the agreement between the assessee and Gemini Television. He showed the total consideration at Rs.31.5 lakhs and out of which the assessee received only Rs. 25 lakhs and the balance is to be paid on the date of signing the agreement. However, the balance amount was not paid as the picture was a failure. The DR submitted that the agreement amount of Rs. 31.5 lakhs is towards CD/DVD/satellite/overseas rights in relation to the film "Maa Annaiah". According to the DR the assessee wrongly shown it at Rs. 25 lakhs in his books of account as receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the argument of the assessee's counsel. As we have already observed that there is no question of giving any credit towards the impugned receipt from A. Mallikarjuna at Rs. 1.15 crores unless it was taxed in the hands of A. Mallikarjuna. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is required to decide this issue with reference to taxability of Rs. 1.15 crores in the hands of A. Mallikarjuna. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 36. The additional ground is dismissed in the same lines as we have dismissed the ground relating to admission of additional evidence in earlier paras. 37. Coming to the grievances of the Department with regard to allowing deduction towards capital and creditors on the basis of figures available in the Trial Balance. The crux of this ground is with regard to giving credit towards the following as sources for expenditure: a) Capital of S. Ramesh, partner Rs. 36,50,770 b) B. Suresh Rs. 11,78,508 c) Aditya Movies Rs. 16,00,000 d) Chadana Ramesh Rs. 6,99,565 e) V. Srinivasa Rao Rs. 10,00,000 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Regarding capital contribution ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as a deduction under any head of income.]" 43. This proviso was inserted with effect from 1.4.1999 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and this proviso is applicable to the present assessment year under consideration covering the block period. This proviso prohibits any deduction towards unexplained expenditure which is deemed as income u/s. 69C of the IT Act. Under section 4, the income is to be charged in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of total income of the previous year of every person. As provided by section 5, the total income of any previous year of a person would, inter alia, include all income from whatever sources derived which is received or is deemed to be received by such person, subject to the provisions of the Act. It will be seen from section 69C of the IT Act that where in any financial year the assessee incurs any expenditure thereof and the assessee fails to offer satisfactory explanation to the Assessing Officer, the amount covered by such expenditure may be treated as deemed income of the assessee for such financial year. The scheme of section 69C would show that in cases where the nature and source of investment made by the assessee or the....