2018 (6) TMI 1386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,68,288/- made by A.O. on account of undisclosed investment in equipment U/s 69. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,77,70,520/- made by A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure for license fee." 2. The facts of the case are that a search was conducted on 31.07.2012 in the case of Siyaram (Katta) Group, Jaipur to which the assessee belongs wherein various documents were found and seized. Notice U/s 142(1) of the IT Act was issued to the assessee and in compliance of which, the assessee did not file its return of income. The AO thereafter completed the assessment U/s 144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Act at total ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e's submission and also carefully gone through the assessment order. I have also taken a note of factual matrix of the case as well as applicable case laws relied upon. The assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. company engaged in the business of electronic media and since FY 2009-10, it was running a TV channel. The assessee had applied for TV news channel license to Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on 18.03.2008 and got license from the Ministry on 26.02.2009 vide registration no. 235/1/2009-TV(1) dt 26.02.2009. The appellant assessee incurred expenses for acquiring the license amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- and other incidental expenses amounting to Rs. 12,29,480/- aggregating to Rs. 22,29,480/-. During the search operation Bala....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee has also filed a copy of formal invitation for inaugural function on 17.10.2010. Therefore, from the above it is clear that the channel has gone on air in FY 2010-11 pertaining to AY 2011-12. In the remand report AO has also not controverted these facts. In view of these facts if any addition on a/c of unexplained investment is required to be made, it has to be in AY 2011-12 not in AY 2013-14. Accordingly, addition made by the AO in AY 2013-14 cannot be justified, hence, deleted. Assessee's appeal in ground No. 2 & 3 are stands allowed." 6. The ld. DR has vehemently argued the matter and relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer. Per contra, the ld. AR supported the findings of the ld CIT(A) and has submitted that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d gone on air in financial Year 2010-11 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, if any additions is to be made, it has to be made in assessment year 2011-12 and not in the impugned assessment year. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has admitted the undisclosed investment/expenditure in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) during the course of search. The e-mail communications dated 5.12.2011 and 11.12.2011 which has formed the basis of addition in the hands of the assessee company towards the cost of equipment and the license fee can therefore be a starting point and the basis for further investigation by the Assessing Officer as to the act....