9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act carried out on 5.12.2012, statutory notices u/s 142(1) & 153A of the Act were issued to the assessee, in pursuance to which the assessee had filed its return of income declaring net income of Rs. 11,33,290/- vide ITR dated 19.02.2015 which was subsequently revised on dated 07.03.2015 by declaring the returned income of Rs. 24,73,790/- which was processed by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer framed the assessment by determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 82,43,678/- against the returned income of Rs. 24,73,791/- and consequently, made an addition of Rs. 57,69,887/- i.e. Rs. 37,27,522/- qua difference between the minimum g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than that declared in return of income." 4. Having heard the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The assessee is aggrieved against the addition of Rs. 37,27,522/- made by the Assessing Officer qua suppression of receipts in this case. An agreement (MOU) was executed between M/s Dream World Entertainment and the Assessee qua overseas theatrical rights for overseas territories (except UK) for the Movie "Dharti" by virtue of which the assessee was supposed to get total consideration amount of Australian Dollars Rs. 2,40,000/- at a minimum rate of 45 per Dollar thereby totaling to Rs. 1,08,00,000/-. The assessee claimed during the assessment proceedings that picture was flop and collection of the film was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authorities below specifically the impugned herein, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that in the agreement the mode of payment has not been mentioned and therefore there was no bar of payment of cash or any other mode if the amount was received through any other mode, it was not necessary that the evidence regarding the same would be found during the search. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee could have received the payment overseas and utilized it then and there or it may have received payment in some other account which did not come to the knowledge of the Department at the time of search. Further the point regarding the claim of rebate and loss is also not found acceptable since the assessee has not shown, firstly the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the agreement/MOU, however, there is no bar to side line and/or amend and/or novation of agreement by way of written or otherwise orally for reaching to the just conclusion of the ultimate object(s) of the agreement, which in the instant case appears to be held orally. Even there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee has received any other amount except Rs. 70,72,478/- out of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- and therefore, we are unable to find any substantive material to sustain the addition of Rs. 37,27,522/-, consequently the addition under challenge is liable to be deleted, hence stands deleted.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/10/2019. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
