9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexplained liability or credit and catena of judicial decisions supports this view. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition and upholding the same, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue on this issue. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed. - ITA Nos. 27, 28, 29 & 30/H/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-5-2021 - Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member And Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar ORDER PER BENCH: These appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 are directed against CIT(A) - 12, Hyderabad s separate orders, all dated 26/09/2016, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 147 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounts of ₹ 2.50 crore was treated as unexplained investments in the hands of the assessee, for the year under reference and was brought to tax by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and before the CIT(A) it was explained that the assessee produced movie by name 'Mirapakaya' during the year and was released on 12-01-2011, which means the screening period is less than 90 days during the year and as such Rule 9A applicable to this assessee, as per the information brought on record. It was also submitted that token advance was paid to Mr.Ravi Teja during the year, but the main remuneration agreed/ entrusted for him was the collections in Nizam area, as such there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be further made out from the assessment order, where in the written submissions of the assessee were reproduced. On top of it, the AO's version was that no Form 52A was furnished by the assessee. This reference alone has been the reason for making the addition of amounts under reference. As could be further made out from the assessment order, the assessee/AR did not furnish any information, for which reason a show-cause notice dated 27-01-2015 was issued to the assessee by the AO, whose contents were also reproduced in assessment order, but do not indicate any specific information being asked on the subject of the Form 52A or the amounts of ₹ 2.50 crore, alleged to have been paid to Mr.Ravi Teja. Thus, on facts, it becomes clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee to Mr. Ravi Teja was not reflected in form 52A and the assessee failed to explain the reason for omission. He therefore, submitted that the AO has rightly made the addition. 11. We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. Before deleting the addition the CIT(A) s categorical findings are that mere non- reflection of the amounts in Form 52A, do not give basis to the AO to assume that the amounts represent unexplained investment. The required enquiry and examination of accounts maintained by the assessee, was the appropriate action on the part of the AO, to arrive at such conclusion, more so in case of quantifying the unexplained investme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee failed to furnish the same during the stage of appellate proceedings as well, inspite of sufficient time provided, which proves that the assessee's claim on such liability is not substantiated, thereby liable to treat the same as unexplained. 14. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the addition by observing as under: 5.4.1 However, the further fact remains that the sundry credits under reference to the extent of ₹ 3,78,00,000/- were the amounts payable to M/s. Navabharat Agro (₹ 2,80,00,000/-) and M/s. Navabharat Enterprises (₹ 98,00,000/-), and was representing business expenses. If the presumption of the AO was to be correct that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here that it is relevant to observe that the claims of the expenses relatable to the credits under reference were not denied by the AO, and there was no disallowance to the extent, as could be seen from the assessment order. It was not the case of the AO to show that such amounts are not allowable as business expenses. Where the expenses, which were not denied to be allowed as business expenses, if the liability related to such expenses may not be treated as unexplained liability or credit and catena of judicial decisions supports this view. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition and upholding the same, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue on this issue. 18. In the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
