DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI V. CINEYUG MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5700/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5798 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 153A; 15

Judgement Text

INTHE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 5713/MUM/ /2015 FOR AY 2006-07 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-3(1), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI VS. M/S CINEYUG ENTERTAINMENT, 301,ROSE APARTMENT, JUHU CHURCH ROAD, JUHU, MUMBAI 400049 PAN: AAEFC4615K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA 5704/MUM/ /2015 FOR AY 2009-10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-3(1), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI VS. M/S CINEYUG WORLDWIDE, 301, ROSE APARTMENT, FATHERWADI, JUHU, CHURCH ROAD, JUHU, MUMBAI- MUMBAI- 400049 PAN: AAFCC3158G . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA 5701/MUM/ /2015 FOR AY 2006-07 ITA 5700/MUM/ /2015 FOR AY 2007-08 ITA 5702/MUM/ /2015 FOR AY 2008-09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-3(1), CENTRAL RANGE-3, MUMBAI VS. M/S CINEYUG MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CINEYUG FILMS PVT LTD ) GROUND FLOOR, FLORIDA APARTMENTS, JUHU CHURCH ROAD JUHU, MUMBAI- 400049 PAN: AAACC5391H . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SH. H.N. SINGH CIT - DR ASSESSEE BY : SH. VIPUL JOSHI ADVOCATE WITH MUKUL PANDYA CA DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.12.2018 ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 2 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS GROUP OF FIVE APPEALS BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST SEPARATE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-51, MU MBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 2009-10. ALL APPEALS ARE RELATED WITH CINEYUG GROUP MUMBAI. IN ALL APPEALS FACTS ARE COMMON, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED CERTAIN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THEREFORE, ALL AP PEALS WERE CLUBBED, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND TO AVOID THE CONFLICTING DECISION. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5713/MUM/2015 IS TREATED AS LEAD CASE. 2. IN ITA NO. 5713/MUM/2015 FOR AY 2006-07 (IN CASE OF CINEYUG ENTERTAINMENT) THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL. (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING OF TH E APPEAL WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE REMANDED REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADMITS THE ADDITIONAL IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN EXAMINING THE SU BMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN OP PORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME MORE SO WHEN NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS P ROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS AND IN LAW THE LD COMMISSIONER APPEALS HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 2,55,988/-ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES OF PERSONAL NATURE (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION RS. 3,18,13,356/-ON ACCOUNT OF EVENTS UNRECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF EVENT MANAGEMENT OF VARIOUS SHOWS/CONCERTS/ AWARDS CEREMO NIES ETC. A SEARCH ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 3 AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132/ 133A WAS CARR IED OUT IN THE ASSESSEES GROUP CASE ON 25 TH NOVEMBER 2009. DURING THE SEARCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEES GROUP. CONSEQUENTLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C RWS 153A WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 31 ST OCTOBER 2011 TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 15 3A/153C THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 8 TH NOVEMBER 2011, DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS DECLARED WHILE FILING ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 ST OF OCTOBER 2006 I.E. RS. 76,24,101/- . THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 30 TH DECEMBER 2011 UNDER SECTION 143(3) RWS 153A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,55,988/- BEING @ 10% OUT OF EXPENSES OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES AND ADDITION OF RS.3,18,13,356/- ON ACCOUNT INCOME OF VARIOUS EV ENTS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE REVENUE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN ALL APPEAL THE FACTS ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL EXCEPT VARIAT ION OF FIGURE OF ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF EVENTS ORGANIZED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, WHICH WERE EITHER SHOWN OF THE WEB-SITE OF THE CINEYUG GROUP O R FOUND IN THE SEIZED PAPER DURING THE SEARCH. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO RAIS ED CERTAIN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AS WE HAVE NARRATED ABOVE. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 4 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. GROUND NO. 1& 2 RELATES TO ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LEARN ED DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON FURNISHING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE FIRST APP ELLATE STAGE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULE 1962. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURNISHING HIS REMAND REPORT ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR PRAYED FOR RESTORING THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OF FICER ON BOTH THE GROUNDS AND FOR REVERSING THE DECISION OF COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS). THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE LD COMM ISSIONER ( APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE EXPLANATI ON FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE STAGE OF FIRST APPELLATE STAGE WITH OUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE LEARNED AR OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF ALL SIX EVEN TS FOR WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER S UBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE AGAIN FUR NISHED ALL THE DETAILS ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, WHICH WERE FU RNISHED BEFORE THE ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 5 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED CERT AIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTION. THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND REPORT, IF THE INCO ME FROM VARIOUS EVENT AS MENTIONED BY ASSESSEE WERE ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR NOT. NO REMAND REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, DESPITE SENDING REMINDER. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APP EALS) AFTER SENDING A NUMBER OF REMINDERS CALLED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. T HE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS EXAMINED BY LE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND AFTER HIS SATISFACTION THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED T HAT BEFORE THE LD COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONTENDED THAT ALL THE INFOR MATION AND EVIDENCES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSE E FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE INCOME FROM VARIOUS EVENTS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN VA RIOUS GROUP ENTITIES WHO HAVE UNDERTAKEN VARIOUS EVENTS. THE ASSESSEE AL SO PROVIDED GROUP WISE DETAILS OF EVENTS EXECUTED BY VARIOUS GROUP EN TITIES AND WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED CO NFIRMATION, WHERE THE EVENTS WERE AT THE INITIAL STAGE OF DISCUSSION OR U LTIMATELY NOT CONDUCTED BY THE GROUP. ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD . COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH HIS REMAND REPORT. WE HAVE NOTED THAT DESPITE SENDING REMINDERS TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER BY LEARNED ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 6 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) VIDE NOTICE DATED 11 TH JULY 2012, 14 AUGUST 2012, AND 26TH MAY 2014 AND 6 JULY 2015, NO REMAND REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APP EALS) CALLED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND AFTER HIS SATISFACTION RECORD ED THAT FIVE EVENTS HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONE IN ITS S ISTER CONCERN I.E CINEYUG ENTERTAINMENT PVT LIMITED, THEREFORE THE AD DITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) HAVE NOT ADMITTED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE GRANTING RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. RATHER ALL THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS REMAND R EPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT FOR ALM OST FOR THREE YEARS AND NOW RAISED THE GROUND NO. 1&2 OF APPEAL RAISED BY R EVENUE IS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE. THIS FACT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF THE REMINDER ISSUED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED BEFORE US. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS NO. 1&2 OF THE APPEAL AR E DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PERSONAL EXPENSES OF RS.2.55 LAKHS. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD-HOCK DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF REP AIR & MAINTENANCE, AND FOR CONVEYANCE CHARGES. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT IN THE SEARCH ACTION NOTHING INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 7 ASSESSEE INFLATED THE EXPENSES, FROM THE LOOSE PAPE R SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION FROM THE PREMISES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ANY ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OF FICER IS BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTI ON. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ALREADY OVER WHEN THE SEARCH ACTI ON WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE NO ADDITION COULD B E MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) RWS 153C. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION AD-HOCK DISALLOWANCES ON REPAIR AND MAINTE NANCE AND FOR CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTED THAT EXPENSES ARE FULLY VOUCHED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED 10% OF THE EXPENSES WITHOUT ASSIGNING REASON. WE HAVE NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE DISALLOWANCES WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 153C IS PERMISSIBLE IN AB SENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. WE HAVE NO TED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN ALL CARGO GLOBA L LOGISTIC LTD VERSUS DCIT IN ITA NO. 5018 TO 5022 DATED 3 RD JULY 2012 (WHICH HAVE ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 8 BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY IN OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PA SSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF VARIOUS EVENTS OF RS. 3,18,13,356/-. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENU E SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REFERRED ABOVE. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER, WHICH ESTABLISHED THAT THE LOOSE PAPER FOUND IN THE COURS E OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND IN THE POSSESSI ON OF THE ASSESSEE OR THAT LOOSE PAPER CONSTITUTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OT HER DOCUMENTS. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT WEB-SITE BEING INTANGIBLE, CANNOT BE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY NO CONCLUS ION COULD BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSIT E. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PRESUMPTION IF ANY, UNDER SECTION 29 2C IS REBUTTABLE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AR F URTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ALL EVE NTS FOR WHICH THE ADDITION IS MADE HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SIX E VENTS, WHICH CONSIST OF ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 9 SHAH RUKH KHAN DINNER IN HOLLAND, DHOOT FAMILY PAR TY KOLKATA, MITTAL ANNIVERSARY IN DUBAI, ROSY BLUE WEDDING BKC GROUND MUMBAI AND VIDEOCON WEDDING RECEPTION AT KALINA MUMBAI. THE A SSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED ON HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE ABOVE SIX EVENT WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE ADDITION OF ALL THE EVENTS BASED ON TOTAL RECEIPT OF THE EVENTS HELD DU RING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COME TO A MAGIC FIGURE OF RS. 53, 02,256/- FOR EACH OF THE OCCASION. DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE FURNIS HED COMPLETE DETAIL AND EXPLANATION OF EACH OF THE EVENTS MENTIONED ON THE WEB-SITE . THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE SUBMISSION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 21 ST DECEMBER 2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT VERIFY ING THE SAME HAS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EVENTS WERE NOT RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; HOWEVER, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. ALL EVEN TS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND INCOME THEREOF HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WHILE MAKING ADDITION RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DETAILS UPL OADED ON THE WEB-SITE OF ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE INCOME FROM SIX EVENTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING O FFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF AVERAGE INCOME FROM EACH OF THE EVENTS AT THE RA TE OF RS. 53,02,256/-, THUS, MAKING TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 3,18,13,356/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 10 ENTRY OF RECEIPTS SIX EVENTS. DURING THE FIRST AP PELLATE STAGE THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN ALL THE RECORD AND F URNISHED EVENT WISE DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF ENTITY WHICH HAD CONDUCTED THE EVENTS AND ALSO NECE SSARY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE FU RNISHED THE COPY OF COMMON PAPER BOOK BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS). THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT V ERIFYING THE SAME CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EVENTS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN FACT ALL THESE EVENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND INCOME THEREOF HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT THE SIX EVENTS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF HYPOTHECATION OF WORK ING. ON THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE THE MATTER WAS RE MANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURNISHING HIS REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE GIVING REPEATED REMINDERS NOT FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE R ECORD CONCLUDED THAT ALL SIX EVENTS UNRECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE OR IN ITS SISTER CONCERN AND DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 13. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE WRITTEN S UBMISSION OF ASSESSEE REMANDED THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO VERIFY AND REPORT WHETHER INCOME FROM THE EVENTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALREADY ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 11 ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ASSESSEE THE EXTRACT OF BALA NCE SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2005 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY RECORDED A BOUT THE REVENUE RECEIVED FROM THE EVENTS. NO CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED ABOUT THE REVENUE RECEIVED FROM FIVE EVEN TS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ASSESSEE AND ONE IN THE BOOKS OF SISTER CON CERN, WHICH WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDIT ION ON THE BASIS OF HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FA TS GAVE HIS FINDING. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) GRANTED THE RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE FACT AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY OR INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). HENCE, GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL IS DISM ISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 5704/MUM/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 15. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN EXAMINING THE BOOKS AND LEDG ER ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN INCOME OF CINEYUG ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. WITHOUT G IVING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME MORE SO WHEN NO SAT ISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.' ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 12 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,76,63,351/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF UNRECORDED EVENTS. 16. GROUND NO.1 & 2 RELATES TO ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AND NOT GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT. 17. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5700/MUM/2015 IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE WHIC H WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED BY DETAILED DISCUSSIONS; THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALSO DISMISSED WITH SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS. 18. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF UN RECORDED EVENTS. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 19. ON THE OTHER HAND THE THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF THREE EVENTS ON PRESUMPTION BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DETAIL ED SUBMISSION PLACED ON RECORD. THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT CONFRONTIN G FACTS TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE EVENTS WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ZEE DIW ALI DHAMAKA AND AYUSH RESORT ARE ONE AND THE SAME EVENT, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TREATED THESE EVENTS AS TWO EVENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERE D THE INCOME FOR THIS EVENTS OF RS. 1,62,50,000/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . THE INCOME FROM ZEE LITTLE CHAMPS OF RS. 26.75 LAKHS FROM ZEE SAREGAMA (MARATHI LITTLE CHAMPS) IS ALSO OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. TH E LD. CIT(A) GRANTED ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 13 THE RELIEF AFTER FULL VERIFICATION OF FACTS FROM BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE THAT EVENTS MENTIONED IN THE WEBSITE ARE NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEE S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 23.12.2011CONTENDED T HAT WHILE MAKING ANY PRESENTATION OR BUDGET ESTIMATE OF ANY SHOW, THE ST AFF USUALLY WRITES THE NAME AS CINEYUG ENTERTAINMENT IN GENERAL, WHICH H AS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FIRM CINEYUG ENTERTAINMENT OR WORLDWIDE. THE NA ME IS USED ONLY AS IDENTITY OF GROUP. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EVENTS INCLUDING THE EVENTS ZEE LITTLE CHAMP (MARATHI), ZE E DIWALI DHAMAKA/AYUSH RESORT HELD ON 08.02.2009, 10.10.2008 & 09.10.2008. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE LIST OF EVENTS FURNISHED BY ASSESS EE IS NOT SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS O F AVERAGE REVENUE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,76 ,63,351/- (FOR THREE EVENTS @ RS. 92,21,117/-). ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE MADE SIMILAR CONTENTION AS URGED BEFORE US. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS C ALLED THE REMAND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO SUBMIT REMAND REPORT, DESPITE REPEATED REMINDERS. THE LD. COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) AFTER ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 14 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND EXAMINING THE FACTS CONCLUDED THAT THE EVENTS OF ZEE DIWALI DHAMAKA WAS SPREAD OVER FOR TW O DAYS ON 09.10.2008 & 10.02.2018, CONDUCTED AT AYUSH RESORT. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INCOME OF RS. 1,62,50,000/- FROM ZEE ENTERT AINMENT LTD., WHICH HAS BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, CO PIES OF WHICH WERE FURNISHED. FOR ZEE LITTLE CHAMP (MARATHI) THE LD CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKE ONLY PRODUCTI ON OF THE EVENT FOR WHICH A TOTAL BILLING OF RS. 26,75,000/- WAS RAISED . THE EVENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR ZEE NEWS LTD. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER VERIFICATION O F BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. NO CONTRARY FACT OR EV IDENCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. NO CASE LAW IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE FINDING OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THUS, THE GROUND NO.3 OF RE VENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 5701/MUM/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 22. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN EXAMINING THE SUBMISSION MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME MORE SO ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 15 WHEN NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED BY TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.34,51,115/- U/S 40(A) OF THE ACT.' 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,45,33,916/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE AS REFLECT ED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH THAT OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL.' 5. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 43,40,599/- ON ACCOUNT OF REVENUE GENERATED FROM ALLEGED EVENTS NO T RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.' THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND AND / OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NEED BE. 23. GROUND NO. 1& 2 RELATES TO ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AND NOT GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS RAISED I DENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5713/MUM/2015 IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED BY DETAILED DISCUSSIONS; THE REFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALSO DISMISSED WITH SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS . 24. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U NDER SECTION 40(A). THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 25. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I), TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF RS. 71, 41,827/-. THE LD COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PASSED THE ORDER AFTER PROPE R VERIFICATION OF FACTS FROM THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE DISA LLOWANCES. 26. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AS SESSING OFFICER DURING ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 16 THE ASSESSMENT NOTED THAT THERE IS ADVERSE COMMENT OF AUDITOR IN COLUMN NO. 17 (F) OF AUDITORS REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE PAYMENTS OF RS.34,51,115/-, ON ACCOUNT OF PUBLICITY EXPENSES, S ET DECORATION, TECHNICAL, LEGAL FEE AND COMMISSION AND COMPENSATION, WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THIS FACT TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED TO PROVIDE THE DETAIL OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE . THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE SUCH DETAILS THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE MADE DISALLOWANCE/ ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT. BEFORE, THE LD COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE DISA LLOWANCES OF RS. 71,41,827/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I). ON THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO FURNISH HIS REMAN D REPORT. NO REMAND REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN THIS FIGURE IN THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(I) AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCES. NO CONTRARY FACT OR EVID ENCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. NO CASE LAW IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE FINDING OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THUS, THE GROUND NO.3 OF RE VENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 27. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 5.45 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF REVENUE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SEIZED MATERIAL. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 17 OFFICER. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT OFFERED THE ACTUAL RECEIPT FOR TAXATION. DURING THE SEARCH INCR IMINATING MATERIAL CONSISTING OF ESTIMATION OF REVENUE OF THE SAID FIL M WAS RECOVERED. 28. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE FILM HAMKO TUMSE PYAR HAI. THE ASSESSEE ESTIM ATED REVENUE TO BE GENERATED FOR THE SAID FILM. THE ESTIMATION WAS PRE PARED BY ONE RAJESH SHETH OF GIRIRAJ GROUP, THE ESTIMATION WAS NOT ACTU AL. NO DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS WERE GIVEN TO GIRIRAJ GROUP. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WRONGLY ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION ABOUT THE REALIZATION OF REVENUE. THE RIGHTS OF DISTRIBUTION OF INDIAN TERRITORIES WERE GIVEN TO UT V AND MUKTA ARTS. THE OVERSEAS RIGHTS WERE GIVEN TO M/S ADLABS. THE TV R IGHTS WERE GIVEN TO SONY. THE TOTAL REVENUE REALIZATION FOR THESE RIGHT S WERE RS. 4,57,81,434/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE ACTUAL REALIZATIO N OF REVENUE AND ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL, WHICH CONTAINED ONLY ESTI MATED VALUE BY THIRD PARTY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS A SALE OF RIGHT AT RS. 10.03 CRORE. THERE CANNOT BE TWO DISTRIBUTOR OF THE SAME FILM FOR THE SAME TERRITORY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY MENTIONED THAT RAJESH SHA H AND MUKTA ARTS DISTRIBUTED THE MOVIE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED C ONFIRMATION OF SHRI RAJESH SHETH, CONFIRMING THAT HE HAD ONLY PREPARED THE ESTIMATE OF REVENUE FOR THE MOVIE AND ALSO CONFIRMED THAT MOVIE WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED BY HIM. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE TOTAL R EALIZATION OF REVENUE FROM THE RIGHTS WAS ONLY RS. 4,57,81,434/-, WHICH H AS BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 18 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) GRANTED RELIEF AFTER APPRECIATING AND VERIFICATION OF THE FACT. 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT FROM THE SEARCH ACTION AND SEIZED DOCUMENTS THAT A SUMMARY WAS PREPARED ABOUT THE REVENUE OF TH E FILM /EVENT HAMKO TUMSE PYAR HAI FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RE CEIPT OF RS. 10.03 CRORE, HOWEVER, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESS EE HAS OFFERED ONLY RS. 4.57 CRORE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SU BSTANTIATE SUCH DIFFERENCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 23. 12.2011. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE FIGURE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS CORRECT. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTE D BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT WITHOUT ANY IN DEPENDENT EVIDENCE, THE FIGURE/VALUE IN THE DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE S EARCH CANNOT BE REJECTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION O F DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,45,33,916/- (RS.10,03,15,000/- MINUS RS. 4,57 ,81,343/-) AND TREATED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE MADE SIMILAR SUBMISSION AS URGED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. THE MOVIE TURNED TO BE A FLOP MOVIE. THE PROJECTED FIGURES WERE NOT REALIZED. THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE AND T HE CONFIRMATION OF RAJESH SHETH AND OTHER EVIDENCE WERE REFERRED TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 19 HIS COMMENT. AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RESPOND DESPITE THE REPEATED NOTICE/REMINDER ISSUED BY LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FAILED TO BROUGHT ANY RECORD TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNE D ACTUAL INCOME MORE THAN WHAT IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALSO CONSIDERED THE CONFIRMATION OF RAJES H SHETH OF M/S GIRIRAJ THAT THEY HAVE NOT DISTRIBUTED THE FILM. THE LD. CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN THE INDIAN TERRI TORY, THE MOVIE WAS DISTRIBUTED BY UTV AND MUKTA ARTS, OVERSEAS RIGHTS WERE GIVEN TO ADLABS, THE TELEVISION RIGHTS TO SONY. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN TH E SEIZED PAPER (PAGE NO. 16 & 17). PERUSAL OF SEIZED PAPER CLEARLY REVEALS T HAT THE FIGURE MENTIONED ON THE SEIZED PAPER IS A MERE ESTIMATION OF TERRITO RY-WISE PROJECTION OF REVENUE OF RS. 10,03,15,350/- PREPARED BY RAJESH SH ETH. NO CONTRARY FACT OR EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. NO CASE LAW I N FAVOUR OF REVENUE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THUS, TH E GROUND NO.4 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 30. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF AVERAGE REVENUE FROM EVENTS VIDEOCON BOLLYWOOD NITE. THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 20 31. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ON THE WE B-SITE OF GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PRE SUMPTION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY RECORDED THE RECEIPT OF REVENUE RECEIVED FROM THE SAID EVENTS. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 25,0 0,000/- AND RS. 3,75,000/- EACH FOR DIRECTORS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY (ALY MORANI, KARIM MORANI, NEELAM SOORMA AND MOHAMMAD MORANI). THUS, T OTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 40,00,000/- WHICH IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY MADE A DDITION OF RS. 43,40,599/-. 32. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WEBSITE REPORT ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIAT E THAT EVENTS OF VIDEOCON BOLLYWOOD NITE REFLECTED NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 23.12.2011 CONTENDED THAT THE SAID EVENTS WAS HELD ON 15.06.2015 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF CINEYUG FILMS PVT. LTD. AND ALY MORANI, KARIM MORAN I, NEELAM SOORMA AND MOHAMMAD MORANI. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT SUCH EVENT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT INC OME AND EXPENDITURE WERE RECORDED AND RETURNED TO TAX. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 21 AVERAGE EVENT RECEIPT MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,4 0,599/-. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE, THE ASSESSEE MADE SIMILAR SUBMISSI ON AS URGED BEFORE US. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED FOR VER IFICATION AND REMAND REPORT BY ASSESSING OFFICER. NO REMAND REPORT WAS F URNISHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER CONSI DERING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND THE DIRECTORS CONCLUDED THA T ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS. 3.75 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF EACH OF THE DIRECTOR , AGGREGATING TO RS. 15,00,000/- AND DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. NO CON TRARY FACT OR EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. NO CASE LAW IN FAVOUR OF REV ENUE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THUS, THE GROUND NO.5 O F REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 33. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ITA NO. 5700/MUM/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 34. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT WA ITING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN EXAMINING THE BOOKS AND LEDG ER ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN INCOME OF CINEYUG ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD WIT HOUT GIVING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME MORE SO WHEN NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS' 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,35,448/- AND RS. 70,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF REVENUE GENERATED FROM AL LEGED EVENTS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL BUT NOT RECORDED I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND EVENT OF MARRIAGE OF PIRAMAL WEDDING.' ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 22 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 4 51,032/ -TOWARDS EVENTS STATED ON THE WEBSITE AND ACCEPTED BY THE AS SESSEE BUT NOT FOUND IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.' 5. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,78,38,620/- ON ACCOUNT OF REVENUE GENERATED FROM ALLEGED EVENTS NO T RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.' 6. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,35,448/- TOWARDS EVENTS STATED ON THE WEBSITE BUT CLAIMED AS NOT EXE CUTED BY THE ASSESSEE.' 35. THE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 RELATES TO ADMITTING ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AND NOT GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS R AISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5713/MUM/2015 IN ASSES SEES GROUP CASE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED BY DETAILED DISCUSS IONS; THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALSO DISMISSED WITH SIMILAR O BSERVATIONS. 36. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71.35 LAKHS AND RS. 70 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF REVENUE GENERATED FROM EVENTS A S PER SEIZED MATERIAL BUT NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 37. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION FOR THREE EVENTS, WHICH CONSI ST OF VIDEOCON FUNCTION, VIDEOCON MARRIAGE AND PIRAMAL WEDDING. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY LINKED VIDEOCON FUNCTION APPEARING THE SEIZ ED PAPER TO ANOTHER EVENT VIDEOCON PRODUCT LAUNCH CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE ON 18.02.2007. THE RECEIPT OF THIS EVENT IS SEPARATELY INCLUDING IN TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 23 SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY LINKED THE EVENT APPEARING IN THE EVENT APPEARING IN DHOOT WEDDING CONDUCTED BY ASSES SEE ON 20.01.2007. THE RECEIPT OF THIS EVENT IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. FOR PIRAMAL WEDDING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITS THAT THE EVENT WAS NOT CONDUCTED BY THE GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ADDITION ON BUDGET INCOMPLETE PAPER, NO VENUE, AND DATE OR MANA GEMENT FEES IS MENTIONED; THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED A GROSS AMOU NT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF LD. COM MISSIONER (APPEALS). 38. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AN D HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING TH E SEARCH HOLDING THAT THE EVENTS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE AVERAGE REVENUE BASED ON THE TOTAL R ECEIPT ON THE BASIS OF NUMBER OF EVENTS HELD DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,35,448/- FOR VIDEOCON FUNCTION A ND ADDITION OF RS. 70,00,000/- FOR EVENT OF PIRAMAL WEDDING. THE LD. C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON HIS OBSERVATION T HAT DETAILS OF THESE TWO EVENTS WERE FOUND MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF EVENTS F ROM THE HOUSE OF MR. MOHAMMED MOORANI, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IN THE HEADING OF LIST FORTHCOMING PROJECT/FLIRTING PROJECTS WAS ME NTIONED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FURTHER OB SERVED THAT FROM THE SEIZED PAPER IT CAN BE SEEN THAT PAPER WAS PREPARED ON 20.10.2009 AND ON ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 24 THE PAPERS WITH REGARD TO VIDEOCON MARRIAGE, THERE IS NARRATION NEED TO FINALIZE FOR THE SAME. WITH REGARD TO VIDEOCON FUN CTION, PAPER WAS PREPARED ON 06.07.2009 AND THERE IS NARRATION THRE E EVENTS PLAN DISCUSSION. THERE IS CLEAR THAT THESE EVENTS WERE IN THE PLANNING STAGE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT HA VE BEEN CONDUCTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY LINKED THE EVENTS VIDEOCON PRODUCT LAUNCH CONDUCTED ON 18.02.2007 AND R.N. DHO OT WEDDING SHOW APPEAR IN WEBSITE ON 20.01.2007 FOR WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED EVIDENCE THAT EVENTS APPEARING ON THE WEBSITE HAS B EEN ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)FUR THER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECOR D TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONDUCTED THESE EVENTS. FURTHER, FROM THE PAPER SEIZED, THERE IS NO MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DONE THESE EVENTS . NO NEGATIVE EVIDENCE CAN BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO REMAND REPORT DESP ITE GIVING OPPORTUNITY WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PA PER FOR THE FORTHCOMING EVENTS CAN BE MADE AND HENCE DELETED THE ADDITION O F RS. 71,35,448/-. FOR ADDITION OF PIRAMAL WEDDING, THE LD. COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) MADE SIMILAR OBSERVATION AS MADE WITH REGARD TO VIDEOCON FUNCTION AND CONCLUDED THAT THE SEIZED PAPER CLEARLY IN THE NATU RE OF ROUGH PAPER GIVING ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 25 ESTIMATE AND INCOMPLETE AND WERE AT THE STATE OF PL ANNING. THE FIGURES ARE MENTIONED ONLY AGAINST SOME OF THE ARTIST. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY VENUE OR PRODUCTION COST AND TREATED THE SEIZED PAP ER IN THE NATURE OF ROUGH PAPER AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,00 ,000/-. NO CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE OTHER VIEW. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE FIND ING OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 39. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,51,032/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE. THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 40. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDING INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AS PER SEIZED PAP ER NO.78 RELATED TO STAR SCREEN AWARD WAS RECOVERED. THE ASSESSING OF FICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 24,51,032/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FIGU RE OF REVENUE AS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ERROR IN HIS OBSERVATION. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS A COST SHEET A S ON PARTICULAR DAY. THE ASSESSEE IN FACT RECORDED THE RECEIPT OF RS. 1, 04,81,624/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 90,54,270/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER A PPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED THE FIGURE OF ADVANC E GIVEN AGAINST THE TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED AND THE REVENUE INCLUDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 26 41. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.24,51,032/- HOLDING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DOCUMENTS FOUND THAT EVENTS CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS ALSO RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES VALUES IN SEIZED MATERIAL COMPARATIVE TO BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL AN D ASKED TO FURNISH THE REPLY. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS REPLY AND EXPLAIN ED THE FACT REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE OF REVENUE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. AFTER CON SIDERING THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DENY THE CONTEN TS OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM SHOWIN G DIFFERENT AMOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD DITION OF RS. 24,51,032/- HOLDING THAT IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL REL ATED TO STAR SCREEN AWARDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED FIGURE OF RS. 88 ,97,881/-. HOWEVER, IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT WAS SHOWN AT RS. 64,46,849/-. T HE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON HIS OBSERVATION T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT TOTAL EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE EVENTS IS RS. 88,97,881/- AND THE TOTAL REVENUE IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WAS OF RS. 1,57,64,576/- AND THE DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER VE RIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. NO CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW I S BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE OTHER VIEW. IN THIS RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 27 42. GROUND NO.5 RELATES DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1, 78,38,620/-. THIS ADDITION CONSISTS OF FIVE EVENTS I.E. AL BAHARIA SH OW, DUBAI, LOHIYA WEDDING, MITTAL CORP EVENT, JUST CHILL, NORWAY AND RAVI ARYA WEDDINGS. THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 43. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT DUBAI SHOW WAS CONDUCTED FOR M/S AXIS INTERNATIONAL ON 14.12.2006. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 8,73,000/-. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE INCOME ACCOUNT UNDER FOREIGN SHOW WHICH DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. FOR LOHIYA WEDDING AT BALI. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 2 0,00,000/-. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF LOHIYA WEDDIN G, INDONESIA, THE BILL WAS RAISED AND WAS ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON 10.12.2006. THE FEES WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE ON 05 & 07/12/2006 AND ENTERED IN THE BOOKS. IN THE NARRATION, IT IS MENTIONED THAT CHEQU E RECEIVED, DRAWN ON BANK OF INDIA AGAINST BALI SHOW. THUS, THE INCOME I S DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF DUBAI SHOW AND LOHIYA WEDDING ARE PLACED ON RECORD. FOR MITTAL CORPORATE EVENT, T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 14,90,000/- WHICH IS DULY ACCOUNTED IN LEDGER ACCOU NT OF ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. IN THE WEBSITE, THE NAME OF ITS DIRECTOR OF TH E SAID COMPANY WAS MENTIONED. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ISPAT INDUSTRIES I S PLACED ON RECORD. THE PARTY HAS PAID ADVANCE OF RS. 6.50 LAKHS AND BALANC E AMOUNT OF RS. 10,22,373/- WAS PAID ON 23.02.2006. THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED TO EVENT MANAGEMENT FEES OF RS. 14.90 LAKHS AND BALANCE TO S ERVICE TAX ACCOUNT. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 28 FOR JUST CHILL EVENT. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE EVENT WAS HELD ON 26 & 27 TH AUGUST 2007 AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED REVENUE OF RS. 40,68,587/-. THE EVENT WAS RELATED TO WORLD TOUR ROCK STAR, TH E INCOME FROM THESE EVENTS WAS DIRECTLY CREDITED TO FOREIGN SHOW INCOME . RS. 13,42,851/- WAS RECEIVED ON 16.05.2006, RS. 22,68,592/- ON 06.06.20 06 AND RS. 4,56,143/- ON 12.07.2006. THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE FIGURE OF FOREIGN SHOW INCOME IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THUS, ALL THE INCOME OF EVENTS HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FOR RAVI ARYA WE DDING, THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THIS EVENT WAS NOT CONDUCTED. SHRI RAV I ARYA GAVE CONFIRMATION. 44. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF FIVE EVENTS ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WEBSITE AND THE INCOME FROM THOSE EVENTS NOT SHOWN IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF AVE RAGE REVENUE OF THE EVENT BASED ON TOTAL RECEIPT OF THE EVENT DURING TH E YEAR AND ARRIVED AT A VALUE OF FIVE UNRECORDED EVENTS (RS. 35,67,724 X 5) RS. 1,78,38,620/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON HIS OBSERVATION THAT ASSESSEE IS CARRIED OUT FOUR EVENTS AND INCOME OF W HICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE. THE FIFTH EVENT OF RAVI ARYA MARRIAGE WAS NOT CONDUCTED. THE CONFIRMATION OF RAVI ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 29 ARYA WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS). THOUGH THE CONFIRMATION WAS FORWARDED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R HIS VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT FORWARDED ANY REMAND REPORT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SATI SFIED HIMSELF THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME OF FOUR EVENTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO CONTRARY FACT OR EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 45. GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,35,448/-. THIS ADDITION CONSISTS OF TWO EVENTS I.E. KINGSTON PALAC E, UK AND AAPKA SUROOR, USA/KANADA. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTH ER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SHOWING DETAILS OF THE EVENTS ON I TS WEBSITE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ITS INCOME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 46. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT BOTH THE EVENTS WERE NOT CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EVENT AT KI NGSTON PALACE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF 80 TH BIRTHDAY OF FATHER OF LAXMI MITTAL. THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE INVITED, BUT NO EVENTS WERE CONDUCTED . FOR AAPKA SUROOR, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE WA S ENGAGED IN INITIAL STAGE FOR PLANNING, SO IT WAS MENTIONED ON THE WEBS ITE. ULTIMATELY, NO EVENT WAS CONDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADD ITION ON PRESUMPTION BASIS. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 30 47. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE/EXTR ACTED FROM THE WEBSITE OF ASSESSEE AND BY TAKING AVERAGE VALUE OF EVENTS D URING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 71,35,448/- (RS. 35,67,724/-X 2). THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING TH E CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THAT BOTH THE EVENTS WERE NOT CO NDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUP. THOUGH, THE EVENTS WERE APPEARING ON THE WEB SITE FROM THE POINT OF MARKETING. FOR THE EVENT OF AAPKA SUROOR, THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS CONDUCTED BY M/S ELITE ENTERTAINMENT. T HERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE CONDUCTED THIS EVENT. THE LD . COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE FURNI SHED BY ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS REPORT. SINC E, NO REMAND REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) ON HIS SATISFACTION DELETED THE ADDITION OF BOTH THE EVENT S. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON PRE SUMPTION BASIS AND NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. NO CONTRARY FACT OR EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 48. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 49. IN ITA NO. 5702/MUM/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 31 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN EXAMINING THE BOOKS AND LEDG ER ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN INCOME OF CINEYUG ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD WIT HOUT GIVING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SAME MORE SO WHEN NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 82,36,328/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF EVENTS MENTIONED I N THE SEIZED MATERIAL BUT NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.' 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVOGUE INDIA MENTIONED IN THE S EIZED MATERIAL.' 5. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,30,42,111/- TOWARDS EVENTS MENTIONED IN SEIZED MATERIAL AND ACCEPTED BY ASSESSEE AND DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT.' 6. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,47,08,984/- OF ALLEGED EVENTS LISTED ON WEBSITE BUT NOT INCLUDED I N BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.' 7. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,47,08,984/- OF ALLEGED EVENTS WHICH HAD NOT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESS EE. 50. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 RELATES TO ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HAVE NOTE D THAT THE REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5713/ MUM/2015 IN ASSESSEES GROUP CASE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISS ED BY DETAILED DISCUSSIONS; THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALSO DISMISSED WITH SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS. 51. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 82.36 LAKHS. THIS ADDITION RELATES TO EVENTS OF SANSUI AWARDS AND RAM ESH SHAH WEDDING. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 32 52. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT SANSUI AWARD EVENTS WAS CONDUCTED BY CINEYUG WORLDWIDE AND THE A MOUNT RECEIVED RS. 1,29,28,050/- WAS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF CINEYUG WOR LDWIDE. FOR RAMESH SHAH WEDDING, THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 84,27,000/-. THE EVENT WAS CONDUCTED ON 22.06.2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME OF THE EVENTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION B Y TAKING AVERAGE VALUE OF EVENTS CONDUCTED DURING THE YEAR AND MADE ADDITI ON OF TWO EVENTS @ RS. 41,18,164/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEL ETED THE ADDITION AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACT. 53. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AND IN THE LIST OF EVENTS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENTS OF MISS. NEELAM SOORMA, DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE EVENT OF REVENUE BASED ON THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF THE EVENTS HELD DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION @ RS. 41, 18,164/- FOR EACH OF THE EVENT. THUS, MADE A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 82,36 ,328/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION OF SANS UI AWARD EVENT AS THE SAME WAS CONDUCTED BY CINEYUG WORLDWIDE. THE ASSESS EE FURNISHED COPY OF THE INVOICES IN THE NAME OF CINEYUG WORLDWIDE. T HE RAMESH SHAH WEDDING, THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 33 THE EVENTS WAS CONDUCTED AND BOOKED VIDE BILL DATED 22.06.2007 IN THE NAME OF SUMER CORPORATION, BUSINESS CONCERN OF RAME SH SHAH. THEREFORE, NOT RELATED WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AND DELETED THE ADDITION. NO CONTRARY FACT NEGATING THE FACT IS BRO UGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM SANSUI AWARD WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF CINEYUG WORLDWIDE IN RELEVANT PERIOD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 54. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVOGUE INDIA. THE LD. DR FOR TH E REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 55. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT THE EVENTS CITY OF DREAMS FROM PROVOGUE INDIA WAS NOT CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. 56. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/- ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT S SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION ON HIS OBSERVATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE INCOME FROM THE EVENTS. THOUGH, THE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH ACTION. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELET ED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF CONFIRMATION FILED BY PROVOGUE INDIA CONFI RMING THAT THEY HAVE ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 34 NOT DONE THIS EVENT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALSO EXAMINED THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND CONCLUDED THAT SEIZED MATERIAL OPINED THAT IT WAS ONLY A DRAFT AGREEMENT. THE EVENT WAS TAKEN PLACE ON 28. 06.2008. THE DATE DOES NOT FALL IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR AND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS INCLUDED THE INCOME OF THIS EVENT IN NEXT YEAR. NO CONTRARY FAC T OR EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. IN THE RESUL T, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 57. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 1.30 CRORE FOR EVENTS MENTIONED IN SEIZED MATERIAL AND DIFFERENCE IN REVE NUE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS ADDITION ALLEGEDLY CONSIST OF STAR COMEDY AWARD AND STAR SCREEN AWARD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT STAR COMEDY AWARD EVENT WAS N OT CONDUCTED. THE CONFIRMATION OF STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. WAS FURNISHED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION. THE EVENT IS NOT APPEAR ING IN THE WEBSITE NOR THE BUDGET WORKING (SEIZED DOCUMENT) WERE RECOVERED FROM ASSESSEES PREMISES. FOR STAR SCREEN AWARD, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 1,59,17,472/-. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH WORKING ON SEIZED PA PER, WHICH WAS UNSIGNED. THE ASSESSEE FULLY ACCOUNTED ITS RECEIPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY PICKED UP THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,51,17,742 /-. 58. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIZES BELOW. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MADE THE ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 35 ADDITION OF STAR COMEDY AWARD EVENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE OF THE GROUP. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT BUDGET OF THE EVENT AND TOTAL COST WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 1.31 CRORE AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO INDICATED THAT 17. 65% OF ITS EVENT FEES. THE EVENT FEES WAS WORKED OUT OF RS. 23,28,829/-. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOTAL COST AS G IVEN IN THE BUDGET AND THE MANAGEMENT FEES INDICATED IN THE BUDGET. THE LD . COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) APPRECIATED THE CONTENTS OF SEIZED PAPER AND CONCLUDED THAT ON THE SEIZED PAPER ON TOP IT IS MENTIONED THAT BUDGE T AS ON 16.02.2008 TO BE HELD ON 21.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EVIDE NCE THAT ULTIMATELY EVENT WAS NOT CONDUCTED AND FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION OF STAR INDIA THAT EVENT WAS NOT ORGAN IZED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION, THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DE LETED THE ADDITION. FOR STAR SCREEN AWARD, BASED ON THE SEIZED PAPER. THE L D. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS AND CONCLUDED THAT STATEMENTS SHOWS TOTAL INFLOW OF RS. 1,59,17,7 42/-, WHICH IS THE TOTAL REVENUE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE TOTA L AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS. 12941032/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED THIS FIGURE OF RS. 1,29,41,032/- WITH RS. 1,51,17,742/- (INSTEAD OF RS. 1,59,17,742/-) AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 21,7 6,440/- WHICH IS A FACTUAL ERROR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ASKED TO F URNISH HIS REMAND REPORT, WHEN NO REMAND REPORT WAS FURNISHED BY ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE LD. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 36 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED BOTH THE ADDITION. N O CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIE W. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 59. GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.47 CRORE FOR VARIOUS EVENTS SHOWN ON THE WEBSITE BUT NOT FOUND IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION CONSISTS OF FIVE EVENTS SUCH AS VIZ. BINDA S CONCERT, WEDDING OF DINESH GANDHI, ASIAN STYLE AWARD, ZEE CARNIVAL, SIN GAPORE AND EVENING WITH SAHRUKH KHAN CARDIFF. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ARRIVING AT CONC LUSION THAT THE EVENTS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THOUGH S HOWN ON THE WEBSITE OF THE GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE AVE RAGE REVENUE OF EVENT ON THE BASIS OF TOTAL RECEIPT OF THE EVENTS VIS A V IS THE NUMBER OF EVENTS HELD DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE UNRECORDED EVENTS @ RS. 41,18,164/-, MULTIPLIED BY SIX EVENTS, THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS. 247,08,894/-. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITS THAT THE BINDAS CONCERT WAS SOLD TO BINDAS CHANNEL OWNED BY GENEX E NTERTAINMENT LTD. THE INCOME GENERATED FROM THE SALE WAS ACCOUNTED AS A SALE BROADCAST RIGHTS OF RS. 3,23,00,000/-. FOR WEDDING SHOW OF DI NESH GANDHI, THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE EVENT WAS CONDUCTED BY KISHORE VIRANI AS HE WAS INTRODUCED BY DINESH GANDHI, FILM PRODUCER. HIS NAM E IS MENTIONED IN THE BILL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME FROM THE EVENT FOR RS. 20,00,000/-. FOR ASIAN STYLE AWARD AND ZEE CARNIVAL , SINGAPORE, THE LD. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 37 AR SUBMITS THAT HIS EVENT WAS NOT CONDUCTED BY ASSE SSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MR. DENO MARIYA ACTOR WAS GET TO AWA RD. SINCE THE EVENTS WERE NOT CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO INCOM E FROM THE EVENTS WAS OFFERED. FOR EVENING WITH SAHRUKH KHAN CARDIFF, THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THIS EVENT WAS NOT CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS TH E ASSESSEE GROUP WAS CLOSED TO SAHRUKH KHAN, THEREFORE, THE NAME OF EVEN T WAS MENTIONED ON THE WEBSITE. THE EVENT WAS CONDUCTED BY ICICI BANK LTD. 60. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NO TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION L OADED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP, INCOME OF WHICH WERE NOT OFFERE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED HIS EXPLANATION ABOUT THE VARIOUS EVENTS CONDUCTED/NOT CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY DA TED 21.12.2011. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF WORKING OF AVERAGE REVENUE OF EVENTS CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE AND MADE AD DITION @ RS. 41,18,164/- FOR SIX EVENTS THEREBY MADE ADDITION O F RS. 2,47,08,894/-. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MADE SIMILAR CONTENTION AS MADE BEFORE US. THE DETAILS SUBMISSION OF ASSESS EE WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENT. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FAILED TO FURNISH HIS REMAND REPORT AS WE HAVE NOTICED IN EAR LIER PART OF THIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) VERIFY THE FACT AND FOUND THAT THE I NCOME FROM BINDAS ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 38 CONCERT OF RS. 3.23 CRORE HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD SALE OF BROADCAST RIGHT. T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 41,18,164/- WAS HELD ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS. 61. FOR DINESH GANDHI WEDDING, THE LD. COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) CONCLUDED THAT EVENT WAS CONDUCTED BY KISHORE B. VIRANI, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AND ESTABLISHED THE INCOME FROM KISHORE B. VIRANI O F RS. 22,47,200/- AND HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED WHICH IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREBY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFI CER. FOR THIRD EVENT, ASIAN STYLE AWARD, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT TH IS EVENT WAS NOT CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE OR ITS GROUP. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT EVENT WAS CONDUCTED AND DELETED THE ADDITION. FOR ZEE CARNIVAL, SINGAPORE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT THE EVENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR TWO DAYS I.E. ON 2 0 TH & 21 ST OCTOBER 2007. THIS EVENT WAS CONDUCTED BY ASIA TODAY LTD., WHO IS OWNER OF ZEE CHANNEL, THE INCOME OF THE EVENT OF RS. 18,84,448/- IS INCLUDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO PERUSED THE R ELEVANT AGREEMENT AND DELETED THE HYPOTHETICAL ADDITION. WE HAVE NOTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASIA TODAY SHOWING THE EVENT MANAGEMENT FEES OF RS. 18,84,448/- (PAGE NO. 85 & 8 6 OF PB). THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDI NG OF LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). FOR FIFTH EVENT OF EVENING WITH SHAHRUKH KHAN CARDIFF. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT THIS EVENT W AS NOT CONDUCTED BY ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 39 THIS GROUP AND WAS CONDUCTED BY ICICI BANK LTD., U. K. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON THE BASIS O F ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE. THE EVENT WAS APPEARING ON THE WEBSITE OF THE GROUP AS THE ASSESSEE GROUP IS CLOSED TO SHAHRUKH K HAN. NO CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. 62. GROUND NO.7 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,47,08,984/- FOR EVENTS SHOWN ON WEBSITE. THIS ADDITION RELATES TO THE EVEN TS OF FIVE EVENTS I.E. DUBAI SHOW (TALAT AZIZ), MUSIC LAUNCH OF MY NAME IS ANTHONY GONSALVES, CHAK DE YAARA, AGA KHAN EVENT AND AGA KH AN SCHOOL OPENING MAZGAON. THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED O N THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 63. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TS THAT EXCEPT CHAK DE YAARA, LUCKNOW, NO EVENTS WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE INCOME FROM THE EVENT CHAK DE YAARA OF RS. 1,51,81,400/- C ONDUCTED FOR SAHARA ONE MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT LTD. INCOME FROM THE SAID EVENT IS DULY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FOR TALAT AZIZ, SHOW THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT CONFIRMATION WAS GIVEN BY TALAT AZIZ T HAT NO SUCH EVENT WAS CONDUCTED. ONLY AN IDEA WAS SHARED AND WAS INCLUDED ON THE WEBSITE FOR MARKETING PURPOSE. FOR EVENTS NAMELY MY NAME IS AN THONY GONSALVES THE CONFIRMATION OF LEAD ACTOR, NIKHIL DIWEDI WAS F URNISHED. FOR AGA KHAN EVENT AND AGA KHAN SCHOOL OPENING MAZGAON. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT EVENT WAS NOT CONDUCTED AND CONFIRMATION WAS F ILED. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 40 EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INFORMA TION ON WEBSITE WAS NOT COMPLETE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT ANY OF THE EVENTS WAS CONDUCTED BY ASSESSEE. THE INFORMATI ON ON WEBSITE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARKETING ANGLE. 64. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION LOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION AT THE A VERAGE VALUE OF THE EVENTS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,47,98,894/- I.E. @ RS. 41,18,164/- FOR SIX EVENTS. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE MADE THE DETAILED SUBMISSION AS URGED BEFORE US. 65. AS WE HAVE NOTED IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE REPEATED REMINDER, NOT FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) VERIFIED THE FACT AND CONCLU DED THAT THE EVENT CHAK DE YAARA APPEARING ON THE WEBSITE AS ON 21.11. 2007, THE EVENT WAS EXECUTED BY ASSESSEE FOR SAHARA ONE MEDIA & ENTERTA INMENT. THE COPY OF LEDGER IS ALSO FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE IN COME FROM THE EVENT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF RS. 1,51,81,400/-. FOR REST OF THE EVENTS, THE LD. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT NO ADDITION C AN BE SUSTAINED IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL. IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITION IS MADE ONLY ON THE HYPOTHETICAL BASIS AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECO RD. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.5700 TO 5704 &5713/MUM/2015 41 66. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 10/12/2018 SD/- SD/- ( G.S.PANNU) ( PAWAN SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 10/12/2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUM BAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE