2014 (9) TMI 954 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposit in bank account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A), after examining the books of account and also entire transactions made by the assessee, gave a specific finding that the assessee was having a opening balance of ₹ 4,29,380 and gave a finding that when the books of account shows that the assessee was having sufficient balance in his cash book and there is no justification in making addition on account of deposits made in cash in the bank account. The Assessing Officer himself agreed that the assessee was receiving remuneration in cash as well as in cheque. When the assessee has already recorded as remuneration in the books of account and subsequently deposited in the bank, it cannot be said that it is unaccounted money. In so far as deposit of ₹ 4,00,000 found by the Assessing Officer, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) gave a finding that it is factually wrong. From the assessment order also it is not clear when the assessee has deposited ₹ 4,00,000. Thus no reason to interfere with the order passed by CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Disallowance of travelling expenses and studio hire charges - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - For making any addition, the Assessing Officer should have supportive evidence and the Assessing Officer has not stated in the assessment order based on which evidence he made the above additions. Since, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not obtained any remand report from the Assessing Officer, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh based on material evidence in accordance with law, after allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assesse - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Addition on account of cash deposit in the bank account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has stated in his order that the amount of ₹ 8,67,552 was available as per the cash book on the date of deposit and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is very cryptic. We could not find anything from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) that the assessee has explained the source of cash of ₹ 5,00,000 deposited in his HSBC bank account. It is also not clear whether the assessee has explained the source of cash deposited in his account or not. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue. To meet the ends of justice, we remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee for furnishing the details of sources for the cash deposits and decide the issue de novo in accordance with law - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Unaccounted cash - CIT(A) deleted the addition as the date of search falls within the financial year 2005-06 and relevant to the assessment year 2006-07, the source of cash found during the course of search can be examined only in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2006-07 - Held that - According to the learned Departmental representative, this amount was not offered for taxation in the assessment year 2006-07. In so far as this assessment year is concerned, the above seized amount is not relevant. However, it is open to the Assessing Officer to proceed as per law, if the assessee has not offered for taxation, which he ought to have been offered as per law. However, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue. - Decided against revenue. Unaccounted gold jewellery found during the course of search - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that it relates to the assessment year 2006-07 - Held that - if the assessee has not offered for taxation the jewellery found and valued at the time of search, it is open to the Assessing Officer to take action in the assessment year 2006-07. as per law. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relevant to the assessment year 2005-06.- Decided against revenue. Addition on the professional income for the film Perazhagan - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - the explanation given by the assessee and the findings of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are contradictory. At page 4 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order, the seized document receipt is reproduced, wherein it is stated that the assessee entered into agreement on November 23, 2005, but advance of ₹ 1,00,001 was already paid and an amount of ₹ 6,12,499 was received on April 22, 2004 and TDS also deducted. We could not understand as to how full remuneration was made in advance on different dates before entering into agreement. The very basis for making the above addition receipt seized appears to be contradictory. The Assessing Officer has stated in the assessment order that the assessee has shown receipt of ₹ 1,00,001 only on January 10, 2005. We are of the opinion that the each and every fact requires detailed verification. Thus remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh after - Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purpose. Addition made on account of suspense account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - IT(Appeals), after examining suspense account and also the seized document on which addition was made, gave categorical finding that the banking transactions recorded in the suspense account are regular transaction duly recorded in the books of account. He accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Decided against revenue. Addition on account of the investment in immovable property - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee has submitted that he has purchased the property at ₹ 36 lakhs. After examining the facts of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) gave a finding that the assessee has paid ₹ 42 lakhs in the financial year 2005-06, which was duly recorded in the books of account. We do not find any basis for the above findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). There is lot of inconsistency in this issue and the facts are not clear. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this issue has to be decided de novo. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Addition on account of cash deposits in bank account - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The assessee has not explained the source either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or even before us. We find lot of inconsistency in the facts and figures. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that this issue has to be examined in detail and the assessee may be given one more opportunity to explain the source of cash deposited in his bank account - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Disallowance of professional expenditure - CIT(A) restricted disallowance to travelling and conveyance - Held that - The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) simply held that there is element of personal expenses and offered extra income in the return. It appears that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), without examining the issue, restricted the disallowance to the extent of ₹ 1.50 lakhs. Even the Assessing Officer has observed that the producers take the responsibility of meeting almost every need of an artist including the food, drinks costumes, travelling, boarding, etc., without any material evidence. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the onus cast upon both sides, i.e., the Assessing Officer should have ascertained the expenditure actually incurred by the assessee and the assessee should furnish relevant vouchers and books of account for making such claim of expenditure. Thus remit the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh by examining the issue in detail - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 8,10,700.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 23,65,347 on travelling expenses and studio hire charges.
3. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of cash deposit in the bank account.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,08,000 on account of cash found during the search.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 15,35,211 on account of gold jewellery found during the search.
6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 7,50,000 on professional income for the film Perazhagan.
7. Deletion of addition of Rs. 14,19,000 on account of suspense account.
8. Deletion of addition of Rs. 13,82,948 on account of investment in immovable property.
9. Deletion of addition of Rs. 50,00,000 on account of cash deposits in the bank account.
10. Restriction of professional expenditure of Rs. 15,54,750 as travelling and conveyance expenses to Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
11. Deletion of addition of Rs. 25,96,733 on account of studio hire charges and Rs. 5,69,754 on account of travelling expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 8,10,700:
The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 8,10,700 to the assessee's income, considering cash deposits in the bank account as unaccounted income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the cash deposits were reflected in the books of account and had adequate cash balance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 23,65,347 on travelling expenses and studio hire charges:
The AO disallowed Rs. 23,65,347, asserting that these expenses were not supported by regular books of account or vouchers. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 1,00,000 for travelling expenses and accepted the studio hire charges as they were vouched and recorded. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to obtain a remand report and decide based on material evidence.

3. Addition of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of cash deposit in the bank account:
The AO added Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding adequate cash balance in the cash book. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order cryptic and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh examination and detailed verification.

4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,08,000 on account of cash found during the search:
The AO added Rs. 3,08,000 found during the search as unexplained income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the source of cash found during the search should be examined in the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the addition was not relevant for the assessment year 2005-06.

5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 15,35,211 on account of gold jewellery found during the search:
The AO added Rs. 15,35,211 for unaccounted gold jewellery found during the search. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating it should be examined in the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the addition was not relevant for the assessment year 2005-06.

6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 7,50,000 on professional income for the film Perazhagan:
The AO added Rs. 7,50,000 based on seized documents showing discrepancies in remuneration received. The CIT(A) found that the amount was part of a total payment received and deleted the addition. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the facts and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh verification.

7. Deletion of addition of Rs. 14,19,000 on account of suspense account:
The AO added Rs. 14,19,000 as unexplained income based on a seized document showing a suspense account. The CIT(A) found that the transactions were regular and recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.

8. Deletion of addition of Rs. 13,82,948 on account of investment in immovable property:
The AO added Rs. 13,82,948 as unexplained investment based on the market value of the property. The CIT(A) found that the payment was recorded in the books of account and deleted the addition. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the facts and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh examination.

9. Deletion of addition of Rs. 50,00,000 on account of cash deposits in the bank account:
The AO added Rs. 50,00,000 as unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) found that the actual deposit was Rs. 3,62,000 and deleted the addition. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the facts and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh examination.

10. Restriction of professional expenditure of Rs. 15,54,750 as travelling and conveyance expenses to Rs. 1.5 lakhs:
The AO disallowed Rs. 15,54,750 as personal expenses. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh examination, directing both parties to furnish relevant evidence.

11. Deletion of addition of Rs. 25,96,733 on account of studio hire charges and Rs. 5,69,754 on account of travelling expenses:
The AO disallowed these expenses, asserting they should be borne by the producer. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding the expenses were duly vouched and recorded. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the AO to obtain a remand report and decide based on material evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2003-04, allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 for statistical purposes, partly allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 for statistical purposes, and allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 for statistical purposes.