TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AY. 2011-12 on 30-09-2011 declaring an income of Rs. 1,98,38,784/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 2,45,24,936/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) made certain additions. One of the additions was an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, being cash received from M/s. R.R. Movie Makers. This addition was made based on a document found at the premises of M/s. R.R. Movie Makers when there was a search at their premises. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee by sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee preferred second appeal before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 10 Lakhs stated to be amount received and not disclosed. 4. Assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that provisions of Section 292C are not applicable to the assessee and the said Phaneendra Reddy denied having paid any amounts in cash and relied on various judgments also. Ld. CIT(A), however, relying on the extracts from the documents, confirmed the amounts. 5. Ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that similar addition on the basis of the same document was also brought to tax in the hands of Shri G. Mahesh Babu, cine actor and the ITAT vide ITA No. 256 and others/Hyd/2015 dt. 27-11-2015 considered the facts and rejected the contentions of the department and deleted the addition. He further contended that provisions of Section 292C ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved by Assessing Officer, both assessee and Shri Reddy flatly denied of any payment having been made in cash over and above the cheque payments. Assessing Officer, however, disbelieved the statements of assessee and Shri Reddy. He observed that when the cheque payments recorded in the seized material was accepted as correct, cash payments recorded cannot be denied. He further observed, in view of the specific provision of S.292C presumption could be, the contents of seized material are true. Though assessee strongly protested before the Assessing Officer by stating that loose sheets seized from a third party cannot form the basis for addition and also relied upon some judicial authorities in that context, the Assessing Officer rejecting al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o assessee is prior to that date, hence, it will not relate to the impugned assessment year. Therefore, no addition can be made in the impugned assessment year. In support of his contention, Learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions- (a) Pradeep Amruthlal Runwal V/s.TRO (2014) 149 ITD 548(Pune) (b) DCIT V/s. K. Babu Rao (2014) 39 CCH 0034 (Hyd. Trib) (c) DCIT V/s. C. Krishna Yadav (2011) 46 SOT 250 (Hyd) 37. Learned Departmental Representative, relied upon the reasoning of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 38. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. We have also examined the decisions cited at the Bar. Undisputedly, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et from exhibitors appears plausible. Moreover, except the loose sheet seized from third party, there is no other evidence, which could establish the cash payment to assessee. In our view, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence to prove the contents of the seized document to be correct, it will have no evidentiary value in the eye of law, hence, no addition can be made solely relying upon such document. More so, when both the assessee as well as the person from whom the document was seized have denied of having entered into any such transaction/ Therefore, in our view, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. 39. There is one more aspect to the issue. On careful examination of the seized document,....