9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowing certain expenditures on adhoc basis though the assessee failed to discharge the onus and establish that the liability rests in him and no on the producer to incur such expenditure? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in allowing expenditure on adhoc basis when the assessee failed to adduce proof of having incurred such expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his business? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who has allowed further relief while the assessee has not produced any evidence either before the Assessing Officer or before the Appellate Authorities? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 2008-2009, the assessee claimed professional expenditure to the tune of Rs. 3,61,57,151/- and the Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 97,26,722/- for want of evidence. 3.3. As the assessee failed to submit any evidence in support of his claim of expenditure as above, the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act for both the assessment years on 30.12.2011. 3.4. Assailing the orders passed by the Assessing officer, the assessee preferred appeals. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by order dated 27.3.2013, held that though there is no supporting evidence, the incurring of expenditure by the assessee, who is an actor, at different places where shooting takes place cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her expenses claimed were disallowed for want of evidence. But, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was of the view that the claim of the assessee for the two assessment years was justified on account of his professional calling as a leading cinema artist. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), taking note of the nature of the assessee's professional occupation, partly allowed the appeal and the addition to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 35,00,000/- for the assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 respectively was deleted and the balance addition was confirmed. The relevant portions of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) read as under: "I.T.A.No.196/11-12/A.II, dated 27.3.2013 (Assessment Year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that the expenses were not supported by necessary evidences. In this regard, the ld.AR has admitted that there are no supporting evidences to prove the claim. However, considering the nature of expenses which a film actor incurs, he requested to take a lenient view. I have duly considered the matter. Additions of Rs. 6,77,900/- and Rs. 1,60,99,940/- have already been sustained in this order. There is no dispute regarding rendering of professional services by the appellant. He has also offered professional receipts as his income. Though there is no supporting evidences, the incurring of expenditure by the appellant actor at different places where shooting takes place cannot be ruled out. He is required to incur expenses on costumes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assesseem, came to Rs. 2,83,63,924/-. Out of the above amount, a sum of Rs. 59,59,101/- was suo motu disallowed by the assessee in his computation statement. The balance disallowance comprised of sum of Rs. 1,60,99,940/- under Section 40A(3), Rs. 6,77,900/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Rs. 56,26,983/- for want of evidence. CIT (Appeals) had given a relief of Rs. 35 Lakhs on the disallowance of Rs. 56,26,983/-. Break-up of Rs. 56,26,983/- shows that it included costume design charges of Rs. 8,65,000/-, Dietitian charges of Rs. 6 Lakhs, boarding & lodging expenses of Rs. 11,98,148/-, Fan Club expenses of Rs. 12,63,835/- and Press meeting expenditure of Rs. 5 Lakhs. Whole of the claim of Dietitian Charges, costume design char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee and taking into consideration the overall expenditure claimed under various heads, thought it fit to allow the expenditure in a sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs under these heads for the assessment year 2007-2008 and Rs. 35 Lakhs for the assessment year 2008-2009. The said finding of fact was confirmed by the Tribunal. 10. We find this is a pure question of fact and there is no substantial question of law involved for us to consider the matter as a tax appeal. It is also not the specific case of the Revenue that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal is perverse or in violation of any provision of law. The grounds of appeal raised are pure questions of fact and, therefore, we find no merits in these appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
