TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e total income at Rs.8,93,80,545/- by making the following additions : (i) Addition of Rs.31,00,000/- made on the basis of noting related to certain cash receipts as mentioned in the impounded diary. (ii) Addition of Rs.3,02,75,200/- being the assessee's share of collections received from M/s Asha Film Distributors towards the movie "Pokiri" (iii) Disallowance of Rs.38,00,000/- claimed as payment made to M/s Prasad Film Laboratories under the head "Cost of Production of the film Pokiri" 4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal. Subsequently cross appeals were filed by the Department as well as the assessee before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide ITA No.1627/Hyd/2010 filed by the assessee and ITA No.75/Hyd/2011 filed by the Revenue vide order dated 10.02.2014 restored the issue of addition of Rs.3,02,75,200/- to the file of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: "5.1. The claim of the assessee is that the share of the assessee was at Rs. 1.40 crores and others is relating to the share of Vaishnavi Academy of Rs.4,42,75,200/- and also there was an expenditure in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. 7.1 However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He issued notice u/s 133(6) calling for certain information from Mr. A. Mallikarjun such as to furnish the details of gross collection of the movie "Pokiri" out of which the assessee's share of income along with copy of the MOU in respect of Movie "Pokiri" and copy of agreement, if any, entered into with the assessee. Shri Mallikarjun, vide letter dated 10.02.2016 confirmed the gross collection of the ceded area at roughly about Rs.7.25 crores. He, however, submitted that he has no books of account or ledger in support of this figure due to efflux of time. He further confirmed that he has purchased the said movie for a total consideration of Rs.1,40,00,000. He also enclosed a copy of the MOU entered into with the assessee for the distribution rights for the film in the ceded area. However, in view of the observation of the Tribunal that the said MOU is a self-serving document and therefore, cannot be accepted, the Assessing Officer rejected the same. In absence of any registered written agreement or any documentary evidence to support....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the sworn statement during the course of survey, the assessee himself stated that there is no agreement entered into between the parties. Thus, there is no merit in the assessee's contention with regard to the MOU. 6.31 Further, the assessee argued that Sri A. Mallikarjuna of M/s. Asha Film Distributors has also stated before the A0 that he had purchased the distribution rights on outright basis for Rs. 1,40,00,000/- only. In this regard, it may be noted that Sri A. Mallikarjuna, in his reply to the AO, vide letter dated 10.02.2016, has categorically stated that "I do not have any books of accounts or ledgers in support of the above figures due to efflux of time". Accordingly, he could not produce any books of account or other documentary evidence in support of his claim except furnishing a copy of the same MOU (supra), which cannot be considered as an admissible evidence in order to accept his contention with regard to purchase of distribution rights on outright basis for Rs . 1,40,00,000/- only. On the other hand, in the same letter he himself has confessed to the fact that the gross collections of film "Pokiri" for Ceded Area was roughly about Rs. 7,25,00,000/-. 6.32....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are partly allowed." 9. So far as the omission of Rs.31,00,000/- to the returned income is concerned, the learned CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake which is apparent from record by observing as under: "7.1 (i) MISTAKE IN COMPUTATION OF REVISED TOTAL INCOME BY THE AO During the course of appellate proceedings, while perusing the assessment record, it is observed that in respect of first round of quantum proceedings, while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) dated 15.11.2010 (supra), the AO passed the consequential order in PAN: AEKPP2273E dated 17.02.2011 (inadvertently typed as 17.02.2010) wherein the revised total income of the assessee has been computed at Rs. 8,55,80,545/-. While doing so, as directed by the CIT(A) (supra), inter alia, the AO conducted verification and retained the addition of Rs.3100,000/-, and deleted the addition of Rs.38,00,000/- made in the original assessment order. The relevant portion of the consequential order dated 17.02.2011 (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference: "The CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 1,97,12,723/- as additional income of the Assessee. 3 The Appellate Commissioner erred in not taking congnizance of the statement given by the distributor, who purchased the movie outright. 4 The Appellate commissioner erred in giving a direction to the A.O. on a matter, which was not in dispute before the Appellate Commissioner amounting to Rs. 31,00,000/-. 5 The Appellate Commissioner while giving direction to rectify the mistake at Ground no. 3 above should have given an opportunity to the Appellant. 6 Any other grounds which the appellant may urge either at or before the date of hearing. 11. Grounds of appeal No.1 & 6 being general in nature are dismissed. 12. Grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 relate to the order of the CIT (A) in confirming the amount of Rs.1,97,12,723/-. 13. The learned Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT (A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,97,12,723/- out of the addition of Rs.3,02,75,200/- made by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued notice u/s 133(6) to Mr. A. Mallikarjun who was the witness of the Assessing Officer. Mr. Mallikarjun in his reply has categorically stated that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO and the learned CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in the instant case made addition of Rs.3,02,75,000/- which is the difference between the amount of Rs.4,42,75,200/- being the collection as per document impounded and Rs.1,40,00,000/- shown by the assessee on account of assessee's share received from the film distributor Mr. A. Mallikarjun on account of the movie "Pokiri". We find the learned CIT (A) reduced such addition to Rs.1,97,12,723/- the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue. A perusal of the fax received from Asha Film Distributor, a copy of which is placed at page 6 of the paper book, clearly shows the share of the assessee at Rs.4,42,75,200/- on account of the picture "Pokiri". The above amount is for 91 days. The said fax clearly gives all the details and was recovered from the office of the assessee which was received in his Fax number only. When the said document gives the time, date, name of the Centre with whom the assessee is do....