TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-11, at the time of hearing, it has been brought to our notice that as per the CBDT Circulars No.03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 and Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 9th August, 2019, the tax limit for filing of appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been fixed at Rs. 50.00 lakhs. Since the tax effect in these appeals are less than Rs. 50.00 lakhs, we are dismissing the same on account of low tax effect with the liberty to the Revenue to seek recall of the order, if any of these cases falls within the exceptions mentioned in the Circulars cited above. 3. In the result, both these Revenue's appeal are dismissed in above terms. 4. In appeal ITA No. 29/Hyd/2017 for AY 2011-12, the revenue's grievance is that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Accordingly, it was contended that the AO made the addition without appreciating the facts, as explained. 7. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition by observing as under: "6.3 Perused the observations of the AO and submissions of the appellant. As could be made out from the facts of the case, the appellant produced movie by name 'Mirapakaya', with Mr.Ravi Teja as hero, for which the remuneration agreed was the distribution rights over the movie on Nizam area. For the said reason the amounts as remuneration was not reflected either in expenditure or in realization of revenue/collections, as such mention of the amounts of remuneration to Mr. Ravi Teja in Form 52A, did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amounts of remuneration was established to have been met by assigning the distribution rights of an area to Mr.Ravi Teja, it may be out of place and context to expect such realization, which are not known at the time of film production, being reflected in Form 52A. Further, mere non-reflection of the amounts in Form 52A, do not give basis to the AO to assume that the amounts represent unexplained investment. The required enquiry and examination of accounts maintained by the assessee, was the appropriate action on the part of the AO, to arrive at such conclusion, more so in case of quantifying the unexplained investment/ income. In absence of any specific or irrefutable information on the part of the AO, the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld to be unsustainable and accordingly, ordered for deletion". Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- made by the AO and accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue on this issue is dismissed. 12. With regard to the appeal ITA No. 30/Hyd/2017 for AY 2012-13, the revenue raised a ground that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,78,00,000/- made by the AO on account of treating the sundry/trade credits as unexplained. 13. The facts relating to this ground are that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,78,00,000/- on account of treating the sundry/trade credits, as unexplained. As per the information brought on record, amounts of Rs. 2,80,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the credits under reference were not denied by the AO, and there was no disallowance to the extent, as could be seen from the assessment order. It was not the case of the AO to show that such amounts are not allowable as business expenses. Where the expenses, which were not denied to be allowed as business expenses, if the liability related to such expenses may not be treated as unexplained liability or credit and catena of judicial decisions supports this view. Thus, having accepted the claim of expenses for business, the said amounts could not have been treated as unexplained credits for the year. Thus, it is reasonable to hold that AO is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 3,78,00,000/- treating the sundry creditors to the ....