K.T.Kunjumon, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 21/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8641 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Question of law; Block assessment
• Section: 263; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ------- IT (SS) A. NO. 21/MDS/2012 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01-04-1986 TO 31-03-1996 AND 01-04-1996 TO 2 0-01-1997 SHRI K.T. KUNJUMON V. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BUDDHA STREET, OF INCO ME TAX, ASHOK AVENUE, CENTRA L CIRCLE-I(5), KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI. CHENNAI-600 024. (PAN : ACZPK1724A) A N D IT(SS) A. NOS. 22 & 23/MDS/2012 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01-04-1986 TO 31-03-1996 AND 01-04-1996 TO 20-01-1997 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(5), CHENNAI. V. SHRI K.T. KUNJUMON BUDDHA STREET, ASHOK AVENUE, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 024. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) ASSESSEE BY DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN, CA SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 24 .01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2 013 IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 2 : O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI DATED 19-04-2 012 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1.4.1986 TO 31.3.1986 A ND 1.4.1996 TO 20.1.1997. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INV OLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEI NG DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE. 2. ITA NO. 23/MDS/2012: IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTIO N AND EXPLOITATION OF MOVIE FILMS. THERE WAS A SEARCH UN DER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' FOR SHOR T) ON 20- 01-1997. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INI TIATED AND NOTICE U/S 158BC WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THA T THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE BLOCK A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29-01-1999. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80- IA OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME BY EXERCISING POWER U/S 263 OF THE ACT SET ASIDE THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ORDER DATE D 10-3- IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 3 : 2010 AND DIRECTED HIM TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT. ACC ORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WHEREIN SEC. 80-IA CLA IM WAS DISALLOWED. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF SEC. 263 ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT, THE PRESENT AP PEAL HAS BEEN FILED WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE SPEC IFIC GROUND THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR 80IA DEDUCTION. THE CIT(AP PEALS) BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT ONE MR. FRANCIS JOSEPH IS ALSO EN GAGED IN THE FILM PRODUCTION AND THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN HIS CASE AND THE CHENAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATE D 17-08- 2004 IN I.T.A NO. 183/MDS/1997 HAS ALLOWED THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS TO BE ALLOWED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FRANCIS JOSEPH, SUPRA. WHEN THIS APPEAL WA S CALLED FOR HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FRANCIS JOSEPH IN ITA NO. 183/MDS/1997 DATED 17-08-2004. THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 4 : HIGH COURT IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO. 1318 OF 2005 DA TED 22- 06-2012 HELD THAT ON THE SECOND QUESTION FRAMED, VI Z. WHERE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRI BUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE PRODUCER OF A FEATURE FIL M IS AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PRODUCTION OF GOODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80-I A, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. INSOFAR AS FIRST QUESTION FRAMED IS CONCERNED, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : 10. AS FAR AS THE FIRST QUESTION OF LAW AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS CONCERNED, EXCEPT FOR THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY IS MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTIO N, WE DO NOT FIND ANY DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD SATISFIED OTHER CRITERIA IN THE SECTIO N, PARTICULARLY SUB-CLAUSE (II) TO SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 80-IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 80IA (1) .. (2) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH FULFILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITI ONS, NAMELY:- (I) IT IS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP, OR THE RECONSTRUCTION.. IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 5 : (II) IT IS NOT FORMED BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSINESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE; .. 11. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH DISCUSSION ON THE ABOVE AND AS POINTED OUT IN THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTED IN (1991) 192 ITR 128 (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. D.K. KONDKE), IT IS BUT NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RE-WORK WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 12. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT IS NOT FORMED BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSINESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE, THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION, SINCE HE HAD ALREADY QUALIFI ED ON THE OTHER CONDITION, NAMELY, MANUFACTURE OF AN ARTICLE OR THING. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT (SUPRA), THE ISSUE HAS TO GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS M ADE BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY CONCED ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 6 : 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD S AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELI GIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OR NOT. THE CIT(APPE ALS) WHILE GRANTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA RELIED ON THE DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FRANCIS JOSEPH IN ITA NO. 183/MDS/1ASSESSEE997 DATED 17-08-2004. THE VERY SA ME DECISION WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE BEFOR E THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND IN THAT CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80- IA IS AVAILABLE SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY SUB-CLAUSE (2) TO SEC. 80-IA OF THE ACT AND REMITTE D THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APP EALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FRANCIS JOSEPH IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO. 1318 OF 2005 DATED 22-06-2012. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 23/MDS/2012 STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 7 : 7. IT(SS) A. NO. 22/MDS/2012: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT. THE ONLY G ROUND RAISED IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TAX CREDIT OF ` 26,55,199/- RELATING TO SHRI FRANCIS JOSEPH HAS TO BE VERIFED. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT SHRI FRANCIS JOSEPH HAS ALREADY PAID TAXES IN THIS REGARD AND CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER VERIFI CATION. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS NO OBJECTION. 8. WE FIND THAT THIS IS ONLY A DIRECTION GIVEN BY T HE CIT(APPEALS) TO VERIFY AND ALLOW ACCORDINGLY. WE F IND NOTHING WRONG IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). SIN CE WE ARE SENDING BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TR EATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IT(SS) A. NO. 21/MDS/2012: THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATE S TO THE LOAN FROM M/S. GV FILMS LTD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I S THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ` 60 LAKHS FROM M/S. GV FILMS LTD. OUT OF WHICH ` 30 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED IN THE NAME OF M/S. KTK FILMS AND ` 30 IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 8 : LAKHS IN THE NAME OF M/S. RACHANA PICTURES. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF ` 60 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE TREATED ` 60 LAKHS AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THIS AMOUNT WAS BORROWED FROM M/S. GV FILMS LTD. AND CONFIRMATION WAS ALSO GIVEN BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MD OF M/S. GV FILMS LTD. THE CIT(APPE ALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY DETAIL S AND ALSO CREDIT WAS NOT EXPLAINED PROPERLY AND THE ADDITION OF ` 60 LAKHS WAS UPHELD. 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE CREDIT AMOUNT OF ` 60 LAKHS ARE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND HE IS READY TO FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REQUESTED TO SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY OBJE CTED TO THIS PROPOSITION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE. IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 9 : 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESS EE HAD BORROWED ` 60 LAKHS FROM M/S. GV FILMS LTD. OR NOT. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO BEFORE THE CIT(APPEA LS), NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT BELIEVED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN B EFORE US NO MATERIAL WAS FILED TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BO RROWED MONEY FROM M/S. GV FILMS LTD. IN OUR OPINION, IT I S NOT A FIT CASE TO SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AT THIS STAGE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(APPE ALS) OR EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN CAST UP ON HIM. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. TH E GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPE AL RELATES TO THE LOAN OF ` 55,85,000/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT HE HAD RECEIV ED ` 55,85,000/- FROM 16 PEOPLE WHO WERE FINANCIERS FOR FILMS AND IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 10 : THEY HAD FINANCED EARLIER ALSO. NO DETAILS WERE FI LED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(APPE ALS). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. 15. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL EXCEPT STATING THAT HE HA D BORROWED MONEY FROM THE FILM FINANCIERS. THE CIT(A PPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WA NT OF PARTICULARS/DETAILS. 16. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE AND THAT H E MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR STRONGLY OBJE CTED TO REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAD BORROWED MONEY FROM FIL M FINANCIERS BUT NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) TO SA TISFY THAT HE HAD BORROWED MONEY FROM THE FILM FINANCIERS. THERE FORE BOTH IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 11 : THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. EVEN BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE TO SATISFY THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD BORROWED MONEY FROM THE 16 FINANCIERS. THE ONLY RE QUEST HE MADE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE A ND HE IS READY TO FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN WHICH IS CAST UPON HIM AND THE REFORE IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO REMIT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER AT THIS STAGE. WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS GROUN D RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19. THE THIRD GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80- O OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAD TRANS FERRED THE AUDIO RIGHTS OF THE FILM KADHALAN TO MOHD. SHERIF F AL NAHARI OF UAE FOR ` 62.50 LAKHS RECEIVED/RECKONED @ 50% FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96, AND AUDIO RIGHTS OF KADHA L DESAM TO PERU TRADING OF MALAYSIA FOR ` 20 LAKHS @ 50% FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 12 : THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROOF. IN A PPEAL IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE AGREEMEN TS WERE PART OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THAT THE RECEIPT WAS B Y WAY OF CHEQUE WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK A CCOUNT AND THAT THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED. THE CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF AUDIO RIGHT CANN OT BE USED AS PATENT OR INVENTION, DESIGN OR A REGISTERED TRADE M ARK AND THAT THE MUSIC REPLICATION RIGHT GIVEN IS NOT AN INVENTI ON; NEITHER WOULD IT FIT THE BILL OF A PATENT, OR DESIGN OR A R EGISTERED TRADEMARK. THE WORDS USED IN THE SECTION WOULD NOT BRING INTO THE AMBIT THE CONCEPT OF A COPYRIGHT, AS AUDIO USAGE RIGHT IS NOTHING BUT COPYRIGHT. SO THE CLAIM MADE IS TO BE DISALLOWED ON THIS FOOTING RATHER THAN ON ACCOUNT O F WANT OF PROOF. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80-O OF T HE ACT ON A FLAT RATE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 13 : MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO DETAILS WE RE FILED. IN FACT ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILED. THE AMOUNTS RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE KEPT IN THE BANK AND SUBMITTED THAT T HIS MAY BE EXAMINED AND DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 21. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS TRANSFERRED THE AUDIO R IGHTS OF THE FILM KADHALAN AND RECEIVED ` 62.50 LAKHS FROM UAE AND ALSO SOLD THE AUDIO RIGHTS OF KADHAL DESAM TO PERU TRA DING OF MALAYSIA FOR ` 20 LAKHS AND KEPT IT IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND THAT HE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT U/S 80-O OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED BENEFIT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF RE CEIVING THE AMOUNTS FROM UAE AND MALAYSIA. THEREFORE THE BENEF IT WAS DENIED. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR DIFFERENT REASONS HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT AND CONFIR MED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATT ER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE IS SUE DE NOVO IT(SS)A NOS. 21,.22 & 23/MDS/2012 : 14 : AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE AL L THE NECESSARY MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) .A. NO. 21/MDS/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN IT(SS) A. NOS. 22 & 23/MDS/2012 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) A. NO. 2 1/MDS/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 31 ST OF JANUARY, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) (V.DURGA RAO) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 31 ST JANUARY, 2013. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE