ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI V. SALMAN KHAN, MUMBAI

ITA 5957/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4848 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH K JOTWANI LD
• Keywords: Loose papers; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 5957/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) A CIT - 16(1) ROOM NO.439 AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG MUMBAI-400 020. / VS. SHRI SALMAN KHAN 3, GALAXY APARTMENTS, B.J. ROAD BAND-STAND, BANDRA (W) MUMBAI-400 050. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACPK-8429-P ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH- LD. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH K. JOTWANI-LD.AR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/07/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/08/2019 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2011-12 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX 2 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 (APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-4/IT-5/ACIT- 11(1)/2014-15 DATED 23/06/2017 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 CRORE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF THE CASE AND MERELY BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-47, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S. KATRINA ROSEMARY TURKOTTE (ORDER NO. CIT(A)-36/AP 274/2014-15 DATED 20.03.2015) AND ALSO ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- 36, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTA INMENT PVT. LTD. (ORDER NO. CIT(A)- 36/AP-260/13-14 DATED 23.03.2015)? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 CRORE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME MERELY BY RELYING ON THE ORDER O F ANOTHER CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE EVIDENCES OF UNDISCLOSED INCO ME HAS BEEN GATHERED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM A SEARCH ACTION AND THE EVIDENCES OF SEARCH ACTION ARE REQUIRED TO BE ANALYZED INDEPENDENTLY FOR EACH OF THE PERSONS I NVOLVED IN WHOSE RESPECT THE EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FOUND? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 CRORE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME MERELY BY RELYING ON THE ORDER O F ANOTHER CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ENTRIES OF CASH RECEIPTS BY T HE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FOUND FROM THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED DURING THE SURVEY OF M/S. MATRI X INDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD AS WELL AS FROM THE DIGITAL DATA BACK-UP OF THE BLACKB ERRY MOBILE OF MISS SANDHYA RAMACHANDRAN, EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTA INMENT PVT. LTD., THUS CANNOT BE DOUBTED UPON? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 CRORE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE DI GITAL EVIDENCES GATHERED FROM THE MOBILE OF ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES CORROBORATE WITH THE EVIDENCES GATHERED FROM THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. AND HENCE CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE MERELY BY RELYING ON THE OR DER OF ANOTHER CIT(A). 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 CRORE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME MERELY BY RELYING ON THE ORDER O F ANOTHER CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT WHEN THE CHEQUE RECEIPT AS REFLEC TED IN THE DIGITAL EVIDENCE UNEARTHED FROM THE MOBILE BACK-UP OF MISS SANDHYA RAMCHANDRAN MATCHES THAT OF THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PERFORMANCE AT DHAKA , THE CASH RECEIPTS REFLECTED IN THE SAME DIGITAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME PERFORMANCE SHOULD HAVE NECESSARILY BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE'. 6. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 3 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 2.1 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A FI LM ARTIST WAS SUBJECTED TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX-11(1), MUMBAI [IN SHORT AO] ON 31/10/2014 WHEREIN THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REDETERMINED AT RS.56.68 CRORES AFTER CERTAIN ADDIT IONS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.55.37 CRORES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/09/2011 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). THE ADDITION OF RS.1 CRORE MA DE BY LD. AO WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT, ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOS ED INCOME IS THE SOLE SUBJECT MATTER OF PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.2 PURSUANT TO RECEIPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION FROM ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-47, MUMBAI THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL P REMISES OF MS. SANDHYA RAMACHANDRAN, MANAGER OF MS. KATRINA ROSEMARY TURKO TTE AND AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [IN SHORT MATRIX] AND DURING THE CONSEQUENT SURVEY AT PREMI SES OF M/S MATRIX, CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE IMPOUNDED. UPON PERUSAL O F PAGE NO. 5 OF ANNEXURE- A-1, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALON G WITH MS. KATRINA KAIF CHARGED SUM OF RS.1 CRORE & RS.75 LACS IN CASH AND ANOTHER PAYMENT OF RS.75 LACS AND RS.50 LACS IN CHEQUE RESPECTIVELY FO R A CERTAIN STAGE PERFORMANCE. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, IT WAS FOU ND THAT THIS PAYMENT PERTAINED TO DHAKA PERFORMANCE HELD IN FEBRUARY, 20 11. FROM THE PERUSAL OF DIGITAL DATA BACKUP RETRIEVED FROM THE MOBILE OF MS. SANDHYA RAMACHANDRAN, A CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN THAT THE ASSES SEE RECEIVED A SUM 4 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 OF RS.1 CRORE IN CASH AND RS.75 LACS IN CHEQUE FROM MATRIX FOR DHAKA PERFORMANCE. THE SAID RECEIPTS OF RS.1 CRORE WAS NO T DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 2.3 CONSEQUENTLY, LD. AO UPON FORMING REQUISITE BEL IEF OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 03/01/2014 DIRECTI NG THE ASSESSEE TO RESPOND TO THE SAME. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE, VID E LETTER DATED 13/01/2014 OFFERED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AS A R ETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 AND DEMANDED REASONS FOR REOPENING T HE ASSESSMENT, WHICH WERE DULY SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE IN DUE COURSE. T HE STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED IN DUE COURSE. DURING REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS . 2.4 THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE, IN DEFENSE, SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND M/S MATRIX RECEIVE NUMEROUS INQUIRIES FOR SHOW FROM ORGANIZERS. IN MANY CASES, THE ORGANIZERS WHO WERE PITCHING THE EVENT CALL AND MAKE OFFERS BUT THESE ARE NOT CONFIRMED OFFERS. MATRIX DO DETAIL BACKGROUND CHECK OF THE ORGANIZERS AND PROCEED ONLY AFTER VERIFYING THEIR CREDENTIALS. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE IN CASH AND RS.75 LACS IN CHEQUE, AS MEN TIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF M/S MATRIX WAS A ME RE PROPOSAL WHICH NEVER MATERIALIZED. SUCH AN OFFER WAS STATED TO BE MADE BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE AN ORGANIZER FOR A SHOW TO BE HELD I N DHAKA ON 11/01/2011 BUT NEITHER SALMAN KHAN NOR KATRINA KAIF PERFORMED AT ANY SUCH SHOW. THE ONLY SHOW WHICH THE DUO PREFORMED IN DHAKA WAS HELD ON 24/02/2011 AND THAT TOO WITH ATN RECORDS. THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FO R THIS SHOW WERE WELL 5 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 DOCUMENTED AND THE COPIES OF INVOICES RAISED BY M/S MATRIX ON THE ORGANIZERS AS WELL AS THE INVOICE RAISED BY SALMAN KHAN ON MATRIX WAS FURNISHED. THE PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM ATN RECORDS WA S STATED TO BE BY WIRE TRANSFER AND PAYMENT MADE TO SALMAN KHAN WAS V IDE CHEQUE AS PER DETAILS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS. THE ATTENTION W AS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT PROFESSIONAL REMUNERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE SHOW WAS RS.85 LACS AND NOT RS.75 LACS AS STATED IN THE IMPO UNDED DOCUMENTS, WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THIS WAS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSAL. 2.5 HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH EXPLANATION, LD. AO FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE FACTS WERE CORRELATED WITH ONE ANOTHER, PE RFORMANCE DID MATERIALIZE AND REMUNERATION WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE PERFORMANCE. MERE DENIAL OF FACTS COULD NOT OVERRUL E THE CLINCHING EVIDENCES. ANOTHER POINT NOTED WAS THE FACT THAT TH E ADDITIONS, ON SIMILAR FACTS, WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF MS. KATRINA KAIF AL SO. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE WAS TREATED AS ASSESSEES UNDI SCLOSED INCOME AND ADDED TO HIS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. 3.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE STAND OF L D. AO BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/06/2017. THE ASSESSEE, WHILE CONTESTING TH E VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT NO REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) AND THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS SUGGESTED POSSIBLE ESCA PEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY PROCEEDED TO EXERCISE POWER U/S 148 R.W.S. 147 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. 6 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE VALIDL Y INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3.2 ON MERITS, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION S BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN TH E IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE, INTER-ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED I.E. SANDHYA, MATRIX, KATRINA, ATN OR THE ASSESSEE HAVE CONFIRMED TO ANY CASH RECEIPTS / PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF AMOUNTS BILLED. TH ERE WAS NO CONTRARY STATEMENT EXCEPT FOR A LOOSE PAPER OF A SCRIBBLING PAD. FURTHER, NO INFORMATION IN THE SCRIBBLE PAD TALLIED WITH ACTUAL S AND THEREFORE NO SANCTITY OR RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON SUCH LOOSE DOCUMENT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIS OF ADDITION WAS A DUMB DOCUMENT WITH OUT THEREIN BEING ANY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE SUCH FACTS. 3.3 THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER DUE CO NSIDERATION, NOTED THAT SIMILAR ADDITION MADE ON SAME FACTS IN THE CASE OF MS. KATRINA KAIF & M/S MATRIX WAS DELETED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE ORDERS DATED 20/03/2015 & 23/03/2015 AND THEREFORE, TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY, THE ADDITION WAS TO BE DELETED. THE OPERATIVE PORTI ON OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR EASE OF REFERENCE, COULD BE EXTRACTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 4.2 I HAVE CIRCUMSPECTED THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT THE SIMIL AR ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SAME LOOSE PAPER IN THE CASE OF MISS KATRINA ROSEMA RY TURKOTTE IN A.Y.2011-12 WHICH WAS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-47, MUMBAI VIDE HER ORDER NO. CIT(A)-36/ AP.274/2014-15 DATED 20.03.2015. I CONQUER WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. C IT(A) BECAUSE IN THIS CASE ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROU ND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH ACTION AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MISS SANDHYA RAMCHANDRAN, MANAGER OF MISS KATRINA ROSEMARY TURKOTTE AND EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MATR IX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., A 7 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 LOOSE PAPER WAS FOUND IN WHICH THERE WAS A MENTION OF RECEIVABLE AMOUNTS OF RS.1,75,00,000/-. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT, RS.75 LAKHS WAS TO BE PAID, AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MISS KATRINA AND RS.1 CRORE TO THE APPELLANT BUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CORROBORATED THAT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL PAYME NT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE SAME ANALOGY A S WAS MENTIONED IN THE CASE OF MISS KATRINA. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BY LETTER DATED 16.10.2014 THAT HE WAS RECEIVING NUMEROUS INQUIRIES FOR SHOW FROM M/S, MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. AND ACCORDINGLY, REPLY WAS BEING GIVEN AND SUC H MENTION OF RS.1,75,00,000/- WAS A SIMPLE PROPOSAL WHICH WAS NOT MATERIALIZED BECAUSE SHOW WAS NOT DONE IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2011 AND A PERSON WHO WAS CLAIMING TO B E ORGANIZER OF THE SHOW HAD NOT COMPLETED THE DEAL, AND DUE TO THAT NO PERFORMANCE WAS DONE BY THE APPELLANT OR BY MISS KATRINA KAIF. HOWEVER, LATER ON SHOW WAS CONDU CTED ON 24.02.2011 WITH ATN RECORDS. THE INCOME FROM THIS SHOW WAS OF RS.85 LA KHS AND NOT OF RS.75 LAKHS WHICH PROVES THE FACT THAT THE SAME PROPOSAL WAS NOT THER E FOR THIS SHOW. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFUTED THIS FACTUAL CLARIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE, FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF MISS KATRINA IS ALSO APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. FURTHER, SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER NO. CIT(A)-36/AP-260/13-14 DATED 23.03.2015. THUS, WITH A VIEW TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT OF RS.1 CRORE IS DELETED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], ASSAI LING THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE TO SUBMIT THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED M ERELY BY FOLLOWING THE APPELLATE ORDERS IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER ASSESSEES . IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT CLINCHING EVIDENCES WERE FOUND DURING SEARCH & SURVEY OPERATIONS WHICH INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF CERTAIN SUMS IN CASH FOR PERFORMANCE IN A SHOW AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION A S MADE BY LD. AO WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED. 4.2 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [AR], SHRI PRAKASH K. JOTWANI, ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATING THE SUBM ISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE 8 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO TH E FACT THAT TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CONFIRMED THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE CASE OF MS. KATRINA KAIF AND THEREFORE, FACTUAL MATRIX BEING TH E SAME, IDENTICAL VIEW MAY BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER. THE COPY OF THE RELEVAN T ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE POSITION THAT EMERGES IS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SADDLED WITH ADDITIONS OF RS.1 CRORE AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE BASIS OF THE ADDI TION WAS A LOOSE PAPER FOUND DURING SURVEY OPERATIONS ON THE PREMISES OF M /S MATRIX ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAID PA PER, IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF A S UM OF RS.1 CRORE TO PERFORM A CERTAIN SHOWN IN DHAKA. HOWEVER, EXCEPT F OR THIS LOOSE PAPER, THERE IS NOTHING IN RECORD WHICH CORROBORATE THE ST AND OF REVENUE. THIS PAPER WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY AN D THE COMPLETE ONUS TO PROVE THAT CERTAIN CASH GOT EXCHANGED BETWEEN M/S M ATRIX AND THE ASSESSEE, WAS ON REVENUE. THIS BECOME ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT SINCE ALL THE CONCERNED PARTIES VIZ. MS. SANDHYA, M/S MATRIX, MS. KATRINA KAIF, ATN OR THE ASSESSEE, DENIED HAVING ENTERED INTO ANY SUC H CASH TRANSACTIONS. NO COGENT MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO REBUT THE DENIAL MADE BY THESE PARTIES. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION, GUESS-WORK, CONJECTURES OR SU RMISES. THE REVENUE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, COULD NOT SUCCEED IN BRINGI NG ANY CORROBORATIVE OR 9 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO LEND ANY CREDENCE TO THE CONTENTS OF THE LOOSE PAPER. 6. IN FACT, FOR THE AFORESAID VERY REASONS, THE ADD ITIONS MADE BY LD. AO ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, IN THE HANDS OF M/S MA TRIX AND MS. KATRINA KAIF WERE DELETED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MERELY FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN THOSE CASES. 7. PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT TRANSPIRES THAT REVENUE C ONTESTED THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE CASE OF MS. KA TRINA KAIF BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN BUNCH OF APPEALS VIDE COMMON ORDER DATE D 11/10/2017. THE TRIBUNAL IN REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.3097/MUM/2015 C ONFIRMED THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY OBSERVING AS UN DER: - 73. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT DURING SURVEY ON MATRIX A LOOSE PAPER WAS FOUND CONTAINING DETAILS OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS BO TH IN CHEQUE AND IN CASH. HOWEVER, WHEN THE LOOSE PAPER WAS CONFRONTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. DURING SURVEY, HE HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IT WAS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF AN OFFER RECEIVED FROM SOME PARTY BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. SIMILARLY, WHEN SUCH EVIDENCE WAS CONFRONTED TO MS. SANDHYA RAMACHANDRAN SHE ALSO DENIED OF KNOWING ANY SUCH CASH TRANSACTION AND ALSO STATED THAT THE EVENT IN DHAKA DID NOT MATERIALIZE THROUGH THEM. THOUGH IT MAY BE A FACT THAT THE DHAK A EVENT DID TAKE PLACE IN FEBRUARY, 2011, BUT AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS THROUGH ANOTHER AGENCY, M/S. ATN RECORDS LTD. AND NOT THROUGH M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMEN T P. LTD. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT IN CASH FROM M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. FOR DHAKA EVENT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD DO INDICATE, THOU GH, THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN THE DHAKA EVENT CONDUCTED THROUGH M/S. ATN RECORDS LTD. , HOWEVER, SHE HAS RECEIVED HER 10 ITA NO.5957/MUM/2017 SHRI SALMAN KHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12 FEES FULLY IN CHEQUE AND HAS OFFERED IT AS INCOME I N THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE INCLINED TO AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE BY DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT A FORESAID RULING APPLIES TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. 8. THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND INCLINED TO D ISMISS THE SAME. 9. IN RESULT THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH AUGUST, 2019. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 08/08/2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. # / CIT CONCERNED 5. $%!& ' , ' , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. %)*+ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.