TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this appeal of Revenue is with regard to order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer being unexplained amount of gift received from his mother late Smt. Radha Narayanan to the tune of Rs.1,74,00,000/-. For this, the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. ''2.1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,00,000/-, claimed by the assessee as gift received from his mother, on the ground that the gift is genuine. 2.2. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was unable to produce any document in support of his claim of gift, state the mode of receipt of gift and not even able to furnish the date of receipt of the gift. 2.3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that the assessee has not stated the occasion which necessitated gift of a whopping amount of Rs. 1,74,00,000/- by the assessee's mother in favour of the assessee. 2.4. The Learned CIT(A) failed to note that the assessee could have received the gift by cash only, in the light of the quantum of gift not getting reflected in the assessee's bank account, and it is illogical that a person would have kept cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on conjectures and surmises and accordingly he deleted the addition that receipt of Rs.1,74,00,000/- as unexplained is not backed by proper reasons, hence he deleted the addition by observing as under:- ''5.2. Smt. Radha Narayanan is no more and as the legal heir of Smt.Radha Narayanan, the Appellant naturally inherits the amounts held by her. Therefore, the availability of source in the hands of Smt. Radha Narayanan during her life time is the issue to be examined. Consequent to the Search Action in the group (late) Smt. Radha Narayanan was assessed to tax for the .AY.2012-13 in respect of her income u/s 153A of the Act. The appeal against the order passed on 2812.2017 was adjudicated by this office in ITA No.34/18-19 dated 28.8.2018 in which, the appeal of the Smt. Radha Narayanan was allowed. The appellant on behalf of Smt. Radha Narayanan had filed the Return of Income for the A.Y.2012-13 admitting a taxable income of Rs 1,14,37,860/- The issue under consideration in the said appeal was whether the addition made of Rs. 38,50,000/- as LTCG is exempt otherwise. The Appellate proceedings found that the said land was agricultural in nature and cannot be termed as a capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure incurred for the movie "Aranmanai". 3.2. The Learned CIT(A) failed. to appreciate that according to clause 8 of the Minimum Guarantee Agreement, executed by the assessee distributor with the producer, the amounts spent by the assessee towards paper publicity, hoardings, promotion, etc., will be on the producer's account and therefore, there can be no scope for the assessee to claim expenditure towards advertisement, marketing, distribution, etc''. 7. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of search proceedings incriminating materials were seized and it was found that assessee had acquired distribution rights of the movie Aranmanai for a consideration of Rs.10,70,00,000/- i.e. Rs.5,20,00,000/- in Cheque and balance Rs.5,50,00,000/- in cash. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee has not maintained proper books of accounts and has asked for explanation. The assessee submitted that other expenses amounting to Rs.3,36,00,155/- was also incurred for the purchase of Aranmanai movie apart from the purchase cost. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee has failed to produce sufficient evidence in support of his claim and hence he added this amount o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied on the assessment order and he argued that the assessee is unable to produce any evidence in respect of claim of expenditure that he has spent Rs.3,36,00,000/- for purchase of movie apart from the purchase cost. He argued that CIT(A) without bringing any evidence on record deleted the addition simpliciter on the reasoning that major portion of expenditure had suffered TDS and hence genuineness of the same is far from doubting. 10. On the other hand, the AR for the assessee drew our attention to assessee's submission filed before the CIT(A) that all documents and papers were seized by the investigation authorities which are nothing but documents relating to these expenses which are very much available on record. He argued that the supporting documents relating to the above said expenditure are in the possession of the Income Tax Department only. 11 We have noted that there is no such argument noted by the CIT(A). He has simpliciter deleted the addition on the basis that the expenditure had suffered TDS and copies of ledger folio of the corresponding expenditure is available in the assessment records . As the findings is incomplete and unreasonable, there may be documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.2. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not produce any bills / vouchers to substantiate the expenditure and iIn the absence of bills / vouchers, the only inference could be that the impugned expenditure has not at all been incurred by the assessee. 5.3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of expenditure as well as that the expenditure has been incurred for business purposes. 5.4. Having regard to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. (19 ITR 191) to the effect that the burden of proving that an amount contended to be an expenditure, falls under section 37 (1), is on the assessee''. 15. Brief facts of the case are that assessee claimed expenditure under the following heads:- 1. Boarding and Lodging Rs. 2,63,518/- 2. Commission paid Rs. 15,00,000/- 3. Office building maintenance Rs. 11,63,000/- 4. Travelling Rs. 8,58,559/- Totaling Rs. 37,85,077/- The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings required the assessee to submit bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.3. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that in corporate cases, the accounts have to be adopted in the Annual General Body meeting which cannot be changed at the whims of the assessee and that a fresh claim, such as a loss, cannot be claimed in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act''. 19. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act on 05.09.2017 for the relevant assessment year 2015-2016. A notice u/s. 153A of the Act was issued by the AO based on seized material found during the course of search in the business and residential premises of the assessee. The assessee in its return of income declared total loss of Rs. 4,27,80,214/- while filing return of income u/s. 153A of the Act. The AO while computing income of the assessee for the assessment year has disallowed the claim of loss but the CIT(A) after deleting the addition recomputed the loss and revised the loss to be carried forward for future set-off for the reason that return filed by the assessee is in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act is to be treated as return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act and losses to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139". The ld. CIR(DR) further submitted that return u/s. 148/153A is to be construed as return filed u/s. 139; only 'so far as may be' and not in toto. Therefore, in view of the grounds of appeal are reproduced with the above submissions and also noting the fact that the CIT(A) has suo-moto allowed the loss which was not claimed by the assessee in his appeal. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shrikant Mohta v. CIT reported in 414 ITR 270. The CIT (DR) further contended that the assessee did not file the return within the time allowed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to carry forward his loss. Hence, he prayed that consequent to the AY 2016-17, recomputed loss for AY 2015-16 cannot be allowed to be set off with the income for the AY 2016-17. 21. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee had also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e views expressed herein on the questions of law and it is ordered accordingly. In view of the above, it was argued that there was no statutory prescription of time limit for filing the return of income under Section 153A(1)(a) of the Act and in this regard, the statute envisages discretion to entertain the return of income for computation purposes. On the facts of the case, he submitted that the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act on 05.09.2017 for AY 2015-16 and the said return of income was acted upon by the Assessing Officer in para 10 of the search assessment order. In the light of the said admitted facts, the return of income filed being validated by the revenue in the search assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the decision of the Calcutta High Court in reckoning such return as filed under Section 139(1) of the Act would support the decision taken in the impugned order for the assessment year 2015- 16 in granting such benefit. Accordingly, he pleaded for dismissing the related grounds of appeal for the AY 2015-16 & pleads further for dismissal of the only ground taken by the revenue before the Bench for the AY 2016-17 as a consequence of the sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee on 27-3-2006 and it afforded a month's time to the assessee to file the assessee's return and the assessee's return for the assessment year 2004-05 was filed on 26-4-2006. The date when the return was filed, however, is verifiable from the orders available. [Para 16] Thus, a definitive final order cannot be passed without being sure of the date of issuance of the notice under Section 153A(1)(a) and the time afforded by such notice for the assessee to file the return. For such purpose, the orders impugned passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside and the matters remitted back to the Tribunal for the Tribunal to ascertain the details as to the date of the notice and the time afforded to file the return and pass an order in the light of the views expressed herein on the questions of law and it is ordered accordingly. [Para 17] For the purpose of carrying forward the loss in terms of Section 72 read with Section 80 in a case where search operations have been conducted under section 132 the time to file the return within the meaning of section 139(3) has to be regarded as the reasonable time afforded by the consequent notice under Section 153A....