AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de his separate orders of even date (i.e., 20.02.2017). 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm, in the business of film distribution, was for the relevant year assessed at a loss of Rs. 72.04 lacs, as against the returned loss of Rs. 87.16 lacs, vide order u/s. 143(3) dated 21.09.2015. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed the assessee to have received from, as well as repaid, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash to one, Shri C.L. Vohra. The same being in excess of Rs. 20,000/-, as prescribed by sections 269SS and 269T of the Act, penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271E respectively were initiated vide show cause notice dated 16.12.2015. The assessee reiterated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been asked. It is pertinent to note that no dates of receipt of advance from the theatres or repayment by Sh. Vohra are mentioned. The reason for the film not running are also not mentioned by the assessee. It is interesting to note that the assessee's employee himself is giving this confirmation of receiving and repaying advances in cash from theatres/cinemas and therefore is a pointer to collusion between Sh. Vohra and the assessee.' Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. Before us, the assessee's (through its' counsel) principal thrust was on the impermissibility of the adverse inference drawn from the non-appearance of Shri CL Vohra in response to the summons under section 131 of the Act in the penalty proceedings. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the advance, claimed as received for and behalf of the movie theatres, is not credited in the assessee's regular books of account to their accounts, who therefore are the actual lenders/depositors or, as a case may be, advancers, but in the name of the person which is admittedly working as their agent. Why? There is no answer. Not only that, the same, as is apparent, is not reflected as a booking advance in the assessee's accounts. Why - again, to no answer. Further, no receipts stand issued in the name of individual theatres/theatre owners which, even otherwise obligatory, is the first thing an agent would ask for; rather, insist upon, as the same only would evidence the transaction of the money changing hands, indicating also its p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance and, consequently, received back the same, it ought to find reflection in their books of account, while we find that even as much as a confirmation from them has not been brought on record. Continuing further, there are several such unanswered questions, which arise from the assessee's explanation and conduct: What had transpired in the few days of the receipt, which led to the repayment? As the movie ('Heroine'), against which the advance/s is stated to have been given, finally hit the screen, did the assessee contact Shri Vohra for rebooking the film? Shri Vohra - who is the assessee's witness, having neither attended nor been produced by the assessee before the AO, at least his books of account (of the agency business) could be sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich there is nothing on record to suggest, much less establish. On the contrary, he is admittedly working as a manager with a business house in the film trade. It is perhaps for this reason that he is known to the assessee; a transaction of lending or advancing could materialize only between parties known to each other; rather, having mutual trust - the assessee working through its partners. Rather, he stands described as an employee of the assessee-company by the ld. CIT(A), indicating the assesseecompany to be a part of the Batra group, and which has not been denied by the assessee before us. The assessee's objection to the observations by the ld. CIT(A) (at para 11 of his order, reproduced above), is, in view of the fore-going, without....