TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had filed its original return of income on 31st October, 2007 by declaring total income of Rs. 86,850/-. Subsequently a search operation u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out at the assessee's premises on 05.12.2012 and statutory notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued, in response to which, the assessee filed its return of income on dated 17.06.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 86,853/, thereafter, statutory notices have been issued which were also replied by the assessee and the Assessing Officer ultimately made various additions. The assessee challenged the additions before the Ld. CIT(A), who though partly deleted the additions, however, sustained some of the additions against which the assessee has filed the instant appeal on the following grounds. "1. That when no assessment proceedings were pending for this year on the date of search, since the return originally filed had already been assessed u/s. 143(2) prior to search, no re-assessment could be made to make several additions, for want of any incriminating document found in search. 2. That the ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the adhoc addition of Rs. 2,02,809/-, made by disallowance of 10% of the agg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sclosed in the return filed u/s 153A. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and the submissions made by the Ld. AR to the effect that the assessee has already paid the relevant taxes on the amount under consideration and therefore, double addition cannot be made and the assessee cannot be subjected to double taxation. We realized that the said addition has already been made by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment order dated 04.12.2009 u/s 143(2) of the Act. Though the assessee did not disclose the said addition in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, however, it is a fact that the assessee has already paid the taxes on the said addition, which is not refuted by the Revenue Department, hence the instant addition of Rs. 1,06,000/- is not warranted because if allowed, then the same would amount to double taxation hence, we are inclined to delete the same, consequently, the same stands deleted. 8. Ground No.3 & 3.1 are related to each other. While making the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer observed that during the course of search at the residence of Sh. Dinesh Auluck, who is one of the partners of the assessee firm, some loo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 69C of the act on account of purchase of right of albums of artist Shri Sardul Sikander. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Dinesh Auluck the partner of the firm, loose documents were found the seized as pages 132 to 134 of Annexure A-l. This is an agreement between M/s Speed Records where in the artist Shri Sardul Sikander has been signed by the firm from purchase of rights to His albums. As per the terms of the agreement, the total consideration to be paid to Shri Sardual Siknder is Rs. 36,00,000/-., the schedule of which is as follows; 07.11.2006 Rs. 2,00,000/- After ten days, five lakhs in cash. Remaining amount to be paid in installments on receipt of cassettes." 11. Before us, it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that re-assessment proceedings 147 of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that it has been verified that no other income of Rs. 34,00,000/- was received by the assessee during the F.Y. 2007-08 from M/s. Speed Records, Jalandhar. In this regard, confirmation from M/s. Speed Records, Jalandhar along with confirmed copy of account of the assessee as appearing in the books M/s Speed Records has been received during the course of assessment proceedings and placed on record. On the aforesaid reasons, the Assessing Officer finally concluded that no adverse inference has been drawn against the assessee and proceedings initiated u/s 147 r.w.Sec.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 have been filed. 11.2 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as relevant documents including the agreement on the basis of which the addition has been made and sustained. It is not in dispute that as per agreement, the singer was supposed to record 'duet cassettes' with co-singer Amar Nuri and the second one 'solo cassette' by himself and the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings clearly submitted that the singer could not provide his 'solo music' to the assessee's company therefore, the assessee company did not pay the rema....