1982 (8) TMI 91 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee's case falls under rule 9A(6)(b) or under rule 9A(9)(a) or (c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
2. Whether the ITO was justified in disallowing the full cost of production of the film 'Balika Badhu' as a deduction for the assessment year 1977-78.
3. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in setting the closing stock value of the film's rights for the territories of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh at nil.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Rule 9A(6)(b) or Rule 9A(9)(a) or (c):
The primary issue was to determine whether the assessee's case falls under rule 9A(6)(b) or under rule 9A(9)(a) or (c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Rule 9A(6)(b) states that if the film producer sells the rights of exhibition of the film in respect of some of the territories specified in the Table, the cost of production to be allowed as a deduction shall be an appropriate fraction of the entire cost of production, and the balance shall be carried forward. The assessee argued that rule 9A(9)(a) or (c) should apply, which allows the ITO discretion to allow the entire cost of production if the exhibition of the film does not conform to the classification of territories or if it is impracticable to apply the rule. However, the Tribunal found that the ITO exercised his jurisdiction reasonably under rule 9A(6)(b), as the film's rights for Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh were not sold during the previous year.

2. Justification of ITO's Disallowance:
The ITO disallowed the full cost of production of the film 'Balika Badhu' as a deduction for the assessment year 1977-78, valuing the closing stock for the unsold territories of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh at 4% of the adjusted cost of production. The ITO's decision was based on the fact that the prints were not delivered for these territories. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially set this value to nil, arguing that the film did not perform well and had no market in these territories. However, the Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, stating that the ITO exercised his jurisdiction reasonably and that the cost of production should be allowed as a deduction in the following year.

3. Commissioner (Appeals) Setting Closing Stock Value to Nil:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had set the closing stock value of the film's rights for Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh at nil, based on his understanding and general knowledge that the film did not perform well in these territories. The Tribunal found this approach flawed, as it was based on personal knowledge rather than material evidence or legal provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the issues should be decided based on contentions substantiated by material on record or legal provisions, not personal opinions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and restored the ITO's original assessment.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the ITO was justified in disallowing the full cost of production as a deduction for the assessment year 1977-78 and valuing the closing stock for the unsold territories at 4% of the adjusted cost. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which was based on personal knowledge and not on substantiated evidence. The revenue's appeal was allowed, and the ITO's order was restored.