9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount and therefore, question of filing any legal claim against the distributor for recovery of the remaining amount ₹ 37,27,522/- does not arise. Both the authorities below sidelined the e-mail confirmation from the second party and held that the said confirmation has no evidentiary value as it is only a self serving document. The confirmation from the second party was the best source to find out the exact figure which the assessee has received and which in the instant case the second party has replied by the sending email and there is nothing on record that the AO has ever tried to summon the second party in order to confirm the veracity of transaction and/or email. No doubt legal agreement has its own value and the legal actio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory 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 ₹ 11,33,290/- vide ITR dated 19.02.2015 which was subsequently revised on dated 07.03.2015 by declaring the returned income of ₹ 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 ₹ 82,43,678/- against the returned income of ₹ 24,73,791/- and consequently, made an addition of ₹ 57,69,887/- i.e. ₹ 37,27,522/- qua difference between the minimum guarantee of overseas theatrical rights declared by the assessee in the return of income as per agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 2,40,000/- at a minimum rate of 45 per Dollar thereby totaling to ₹ 1,08,00,000/-. The assessee claimed during the assessment proceedings that picture was flop and collection of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding. We have analyzed the orders passed by the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal agreement has its own value and the legal actions depends 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 ₹ 70,72,478/- out of ₹ 1,08,00,000/- and therefore, we are unable to find any substantive material to sustain the addition of ₹ 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 Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
