Sri. N. Srinivas Reddy, Hyderabad V. Addl. CIT, Range-13, Hyderabad

ITA 173/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69757 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMLAL TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 173/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SRI N. SRINIVAS REDDY, APPELLANT HYDERABAD. (PAN ABXPN7288H) VS. ADDL. COMMISSION OF INCOME-TAX, RESPO NDENT RANGE 13, HYDERABAD. APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMLAL TRIPATHI DATE OF HEARING : 28/08/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/08/2013 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M.: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD ON 13 /12/2012, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM FILM PRODUCTION. DU RING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE MADE TWO FILMS NAMELY CHINTAKAYALA RA VI AND KONCHAM ISHTAM KONCHAM KASHTAM AND SHOWN GROSS RE CEIPTS AT RS. 22,10,65,623/- AFTER CLAIMING VARIOUS EXPENSES THE NET PROFIT WAS SHOWN AT RS. 1,52,17,100/-. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT 2 ITA NO. 173/HYD/13 SHRI N. SRINIVAS REDDY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR RELEVA NT DETAILS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTIN G VOUCHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE FOLLOWING: 1. SHOOTING EXPENSES OF RS. 12,00,000/- 2. TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 5,00,000/- 3. TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS. 5,00,000/- 3. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS EXCEPT STATING THAT THE EXPENDITUR E IN QUESTION HAD BEEN INCURRED DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF FILM PRODUCTION AND IT HAD BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE, IT MAY BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS E XPENDITURE U/S 37 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED TH AT SINCE NO DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS HAD B EEN CALLED FOR AND THE SAME HAD BEEN PERUSED. IT WAS NOTICED THAT VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 19/12/2011 THE ASSESSEES AR HAD AGREED FOR THE DISALLOWANCES TO BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER SHEET WAS REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 19.12.2011 SHRI P. MURALI COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 1956) APPEARED AND SUBMITTED/PRODUCED BOOKS OF A/CS . IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL THE VOUCHERS, THE FOLLOWING DISA LLOWANCES ARE PROPOSED TO BE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL VOUCH ERS. 1. SHOOTING EXPENSES OF RS. 13,00,000/- 2. TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 5,00,000/- 3. TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS. 5,00,000/- 23,00,000/- THE AR AGREED FOR THE SAME SIGNED SIGNED AR AO' 4. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THOUGH IN THE ORDER SHEET THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MENTIONED ON ACCOUNT OF SHOOTING EX PENSES AS RS. 3 ITA NO. 173/HYD/13 SHRI N. SRINIVAS REDDY 13 LAKHS, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 12 LAKHS. IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHETH ER IT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE OR BY OVERSIGHT. THE ISSUE IS THE ADDITION OF RS. 12 LAKHS PLUS RS. 5 LAKHS PLUS RS. 5 LAKHS AND THIS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE ASSESSEES AR AG REED FOR THE SAME. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES AR AGR EED FOR THE ADDITION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOW HAD G ONE BACK ON THE CONSENT GIVEN AND FILED AN APPEAL WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED, AS IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD R EBUTTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CAME UP WIT H NECESSARY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO CLAIM THAT THE ADDITION MAD E WAS UNWARRANTED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE CIT(A) RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL OF THE ITAT IN CASE OF SHRI D. RAJA RAO (HUF), KURNOOL VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO. 718/H YD/2002 DATED 29/07/2004. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS , THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE CIT( A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON ACCOUNT OF SHOOTING EXPENSES OF RS. 12,00,000/-, T RAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 5,00,000/- AND TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS. 5,00,000/-. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANVASSED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN CASE OF M/S PADMALAYA TELE-FILMS LTD., IN ITA NOS. 783 & 784/HY D/2007 FOR AYS. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 VIDE ORDER DATED 11 TH JULY, 2008. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THE DIS ALLOWANCES ON SIMILAR EXPENDITURE WERE RESTRICTED TO 0.5% AND HE THEREFORE 4 ITA NO. 173/HYD/13 SHRI N. SRINIVAS REDDY SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID ORDER MAY BE FOLLOWED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ON DIFFERENT FOOTING THAN TH AT OF THE CASE OF PADMALAYA TELE-FILMS LTD. (SUPRA). HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HIMSELF HAD AGREED FOR THE ADDIT IONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE CONFIRMED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES, PERUSED THE RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSE ES HAS GIVEN CONSENT FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITIONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT IN A POSITION TO S UBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF PROPER VOUCHERS, ETC. BEFORE US ALSO, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVIDENCE REGA RDING THE SAID EXPENDITURE OR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO FILE THE VOUCHERS AND BILLS ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E ABOVE EXPENSES. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF M/S PADMALAYA TELE FILMS LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SHOOTIN G EXPENSES OF RS. 12,00,000/-, TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 5,00, 000/- AND TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS. 5,00,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, W E UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 5 ITA NO. 173/HYD/13 SHRI N. SRINIVAS REDDY 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/08/2013. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2013 KV COPY TO:- 1) SRI N. SRINIVAS REDDY, C/O P. MURALI & CO., CAS. , 6-3- 655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 500 082. 2. ADDL. CIT, RANGE 13, HYDERABAD 3) THE CIT (A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT-I, HYDERABAD. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.