AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation why these transactions are not appearing in the Books of Accounts and why the same should not be considered as income of the assessee. Assessee submitted that transactions in respect of the discrepancies of Rs..14,13,908/- did not happen and they do not relate to the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as income of the assessee for the reason that assessee claimed TDS on such transactions and only denied owning up of the said transactions. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition observing that since the assessee claimed TDS pertaining to these transactions the submissions of the assessee are not acceptable. 4. Before us Learned Counsel for the assessee referring to Page No. 26 and 32 of the Paper Book which is the reconciliation of the income as per AS-26 with Books of Accounts submitted that the transactions said to have been entered into with Infiniti Retail Ltd was never happened and it was not known as to how the transaction was reflected in the AS-26. Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that other transactions are also not related to the assessee. Therefore, there is no justification in bringing to tax such amounts whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AIR information and AS-26 ignoring the submissions of the assessee that these transactions never happened and the TDS on such amount was wrongly claimed by the assessee and the TDS may be withdrawn. The assessee also requested the Assessing Officer to examine the parties by issuing the notices u/s. 133(6). However, the Assessing Officer failed to make any enquiries with the parties when the assessee is denying any transactions with them. When the assessee denying any transactions with the parties the onus is on the Assessing Officer to verify the transactions with the parties and to establish that the assessee indeed entered into any transactions with the said parties and had received income from them. No such enquiries or effort was made by the Assessing Officer to find out whether the assessee entered into such transaction with the parties. Addition was made solely on the basis of the AIR information completely ignoring the submissions of the assessee. Almost an identical situation arose in the case of DCIT v. M/s. Reliance Broadcast Network Ltd., in ITA.No.3531/Mum/13 dated 27.05.2015 wherein the Coordinate Bench observed and held as under: - "7. Ground Nos.2(i) to 2(iii) rela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r view, the addition, made solely on the basis of AIR information, especially in the absence of full details of parties and when the professional receipts declared by the assessee far exceeds than the amount mentioned in the AIR information, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Our above view is fortified with the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of "DCIT vs. Shree G. Selva Kumar" in ITA No.868/Bang/2009 decided on 22.10.10 and another in the case of "Mrs. Arati Raman vs. DCIT" in ITA No.245/Bang/12 decided on 05.10.12 wherein it has been held that the assessment order based only on the AIR information would not stand in the eyes of law. If the assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative. Reliance can also be placed on the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri S. Ganesh vs. ACIT" in ITA No.527/M/2010 decided on 08.12.10 wherein the Tribunal has held that in the absence of any material brought by the revenue authorities that the assessee has received amount more than the professional fees which has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... years which was accepted by the Assessing Officer in Assessment Year 2007-08. It was also contended that additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 14A in the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 have been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, no disallowance is required to be made u/s. 14A of the Act on account of interest on investments in M/s. zee Aakash. 11. It was also contended that there are sufficient interest free funds available with the assessee to make investments of Rs..14,41,79,820/- and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [313 ITR 340] it was submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that, where the assessee has own funds as well as borrowed funds the presumption can be made that the advances for non-business purposes have been made out of own funds and that the borrowed funds have not been used for this purpose. Hence disallowance of interest on borrowed funds is not required. The submissions of the assessee were not accepted and the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. 12. Before us, the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot hold and liable to be rejected. 15. On a careful reading of the orders of the authorities below, we are of the considered view that this matter has to go back to the Assessing Officer for verification of accounts and for decision, keeping in view the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), HDFC Bank [366 ITR 505] and Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited [165 ITD 27] thus, we restore this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and to decide the issue keeping in view the decisions and after verification of the accounts of the assessee. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If the assessee has sufficient own funds there shall not be any disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) and in so far as Rule 8D2(iii) is concerned the Assessing Officer may recompute the same in view of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited (supra). ITA.NO.2166/MUM/2016 (A.Y.2011-12) 16. Coming to Revenue's appeal, Ground No. (i) and (ii) are in respect of disallowance under Rule 8D r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the News items: Regarding the nature of the news items purchased by the assessee and debited to the P and L account, we find it is in the common knowledge of every citizen that the news items do not have enduring benefit. Normally, the news items/non fictional items purchased by the assessee lose its value once they are telecast. Therefore, such items do not have repeat telecast value in terms of the revenue generation by way of advertisement from the sponsors. As such, it is a settled issue at the level of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd (supra) that the claims of the assessee relating to news / non-fictional items are allowable. Even otherwise, even if some income generated, that is not criterion for describing the items as "intangible assets" for the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 32(ii) of the Act. We rely on the above referred Delhi High Court's Judgment in the case of Television Eighteen India Ltd (supra). Further, we find that the assessee has a declared method of accounting relating to accounting of these transactions. He has been consistently following the same without any change. In fact, the Revenue has consistentl....