SMT. USHA SATISH SALVI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These three appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 15/09/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-52, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 respectively, arising from orders passed under section 153C of the Income-tax

Act, 196( in short th
AO), wherein he asse related to assessee fo issue-in-dispute is in were heard together order for convenience
2. Briefly stated fac individual, who runs name M/s Shree S
Pictures’) .
2.1 For assessment return of income
₹9,06,228/-. For ass original return of inc
₹6,04,200/- which w
29/12/2015
accept assessment year AY income on 28/11/20
2.2 Subsequently, a of the Act was carrie
Nadiawala Grandson residence of Sh Satis
Media and Enterta he Act) by the Assessing Office essed undisclosed income based ound during search of third pers nvolved in all the three appeals, and disposed off by way of th e and avoid repetition of facts.
cts of the case are that the s a film production house unde wami Samarth Pictures ( in t year AY2012-13, the assesse on 29/03/2013 declaring to sessment year AY 2013-14, th come on 28/07/2013 declaring was scrutinized under section 1
ting the returned income.
2014-15, the assessee filed or 014 declaring total income at ₹12
a search and seizure action un ed out on 08/12/2015 at the p n Entertainment Private Lim sh Salve ( Chief Finance officer inment private limited), who
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi er ( in short the d on information son. As common therefore, same his consolidated assessee is an r proprietorship short ‘Samarth ee filed original otal income at e assessee filed total income at 143(3) of Act on Similarly, for riginal return of 2,46,360/-.
nder section 132
premises of M/s mited, alongwith r of Ms/s Viking was allegedly engaged in providing
Grandson Entertainm documents relating t which revealed certa cash loan and incurr of its books of accou the search found to on her income , afte satisfaction to the ef section 153C of the and notice under 12/09/2017, requirin correct returns of in assessment years 20
income in respect of total income as unde
S. no.
AY
1. 2012
2. 2013
3. 2014
2.3 In the assessm
153C read with secti addition for unexpla assessment years as g accommodation entries to ment Private Limited. In said to ‘Samarth Pictures ’ were fou ain instances of acceptance an ring of cash expenses by ‘Samar unts. As the documents seized i be related to the assessee and er following due procedure un ffect that it was a fit case to be Act, was recorded by the relev r section 153C of the Act w ng the assessee to prepare and ncome including the undisclo
010-11 to 2015-16. The assesse assessment years involved befo r:
Date of filing
2-13
13/11/2017
3-14
13/11/2017
4-15
13/11/2017
ents completed on 27/12/2017
on 153A of the Act, the Assessi ained cash expenditure in respe under:
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi rth Pictures’ out in the course of d having bearing der the law , a e covered under vant authorities was issued on d file a true and sed income for ee filed return of ore us declaring
Total income
₹9,06,230/-
₹6,04,200/- -
₹12,46,360/-
7 under section ing Officer made ect of the three

S. no.
1. 2. 3. 3. On further app the assessee and s expenditure by way
Aggrieved, the asse
Appellate Tribunal grounds and addition
4. Firstly, we take raised in appeal are r
On the facts an The Ld. CIT(A) expenses. U/s assigned by hi circumstances rules made the 4.1 Before us, the grounds:
On the Facts a approval grant eyes of law a without applica u/s 153C of t section 153D is 4.2 Identical ground the remaining two ap

AY
Additions
2012-13
Rs. 6,45,572/
2013-14
Rs. 1,39,18,76
2014-15
Rs. 7,50,000/
peals, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected th sustained the addition for un of a detailed finding in the im essee is in appeals before th
(in short the ‘Tribunal’) by nal ground as reproduced below e up the appeal for AY 2012-1
reproduced as under:
nd in Fact and in circumstances of the case a erred in confirming Rs. 6,45,572/- as unexpl s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and th im, for doing so are wrong and contrary to the of the case, provisions of Income Tax Act, ere under.
e assessee also raised follow and in the circumstances of the case and ted under section 153D of The Act is no arr as the same has been accorded on presum ation of mind and consequently the assess the Act is null and Void as approval gran s mechanical in nature and without applicatio ds and additional grounds have ppeals also except change of amo
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
-
69/-
- he contention of nexplained cash mpugned orders.
he Income Tax way of raising w.
3. The grounds and in law, lained casti he reasons e facts and 1961 and wing additional in law the rival in the mption and ment order nted under on of Mind.
e been raised in ount.

uthority with the letter for herefore, the approving authori hout examining either the asses aterial.
nd consolidated approval has b
2010-11 to 2015-16 and 2016- reasoning in the said approva anted separately for each assessm granted was not absolute.
al is generic and listless and nner without any reference to y of the assessment year.
al was granted in a mechanic hout mentioning the reasons of mind. The approving auth anything in the approval mem deriving satisfaction so as of mind. The approving auth valuated the draft assessment of the mind on the issue con to derive its conclusive satisf tion of the Assessing Officer i sisting law.
bove contentions the learned co f the coordinate benches of th as follows:
ed 06/06/2024 of Delhi bench f Shri Guvinder Singh Duggal in 21 for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19. Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
-17 and there is al. The approval ment year.
accorded in a o any issue in cal and hurried s and without hority has not mo toward the to exhibit his hority has not order with due ntained in such faction that the s in conformity ounsel relied on he Tribunal and of the Tribunal n ITA No. 860 to (ii)
Decision date the case of 1421/Del/20
(iii) Decision of H
28994/2024
(v)
Decision of M
Phamalabs L and other app
(vi)
Decision of H
M/s MDLR H
(vii) Decision date the case of Ve
AY 2016-17 a 7. On the contrary grounds have been r and suspicion that th tax i.e. approving a material and assess application of the mi submitted that after premises, each and e of possible tax evasio
Income-tax authority
DR further submitted of the said appraisa ed 29/04/2024 of Delhi Bench
MDLR Airline (P) Ltd in ITA
023 for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court na Gupta in ITA No. 88 of 2022. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the r Nayyar in ITA 285/2024
Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in t
Ltd in ITA No. 6656/Mum/2017
peals.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Hoteles P Ltd in ITA 593/2023
ed 24/04/2024 of Delhi Bench eena Singh in ITA No. 294 & 29
and 2017-18
y, the Ld. DR submitted that al raised merely on the basis of th he learned Additional Commissi authority had not gone throu sment records leading to alle nd by the approving authority.
r collecting all the material fr every material is being analysed on and an ‘appraisal report’ is p y who conducts the search acti d that as per the procedure pre al report is sent to the conce
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
A No. 1420 &
9. in the case of case of PCIT vs
& CM Appela he case of Arch for AY 2011-12
case of PCIT Vs h of Tribunal in 95/Del/2022 for ll the additional he presumptions ioner of Income- ugh the seized egation of non-
The learned DR rom the search d from the angle prepared by the on. The learned escribed, a copy erned Assessing

Officer, concerned Ad approving authority)
Commissioner of In appraisal report of material related to c authority. The learn authority as well as assessment orders, i orders were approved officer has deposed t issues between him based on the appra
.For ready reference
Assessing Officer is r
“I, Pawan Bha stationed at K
Wayale Nagar, affirm and sta
4239M2023),
42382023) as u
It has been mo after due discu of Range Head search/ survey including the A Law, approval range head an give sufficient t between the needed. Appr investigation materials ex thereafter as range head. I dditional Commissioner of Inco and the concerned Commissio ncome-tax. Accordingly, he s the case containing analysis o case was already available with ned DR filed affidavits from s from the Assessing Officer w in support of the contention t d after due application of mind that in the instant case, discus and approving authority hap aisal reports and seized/impou e, content of the affidavit file eproduced as under:
arti, Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (AU) -
Kalyan and office address at Mohan Plaza
Khadakkpada, Kalyan (W)-421301, do here atedin the case of Usha S. Salvi for A. Y. 2
A.Y.2013-14
(ITA
42372023),
A.Y.
20
under:
ore than almost 7 years since these orders w ussion and guidance from time to time with t d as per the Law. Generally, the appraisal rep y cases are forwarded to the central charg
AO and Range head and in such type of ca for passing the assessment orders are to be nd so Range head has to apply his/her mind time. Since in such type of cases, regular range head and AO happened regularly raisal report or other communication wing of the department and seized/
xplored and discussed from time to ssessment order finalised after approva
In this case also, such type of discussion
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi ome-tax (i.e. the ner or Principal submitted that of entire seized h the approving the approving who passed the that assessment d. The Assessing ssion on various pened regularly unded materials ed by the then
1(3), Thane a, 2nd floor, eby solemnly
2012-13 (ITA
014-15
(ITA were passed the approval ports of such ge hierarchy ases, as per given by the d and has to r discussion y whenever n with the /impounded time and al from the n happened regularly bas materials as p
Since the office at the same flo or meetings w discuss such c reply from the one to one dis sensitive in na single assessm the governmen on such cases proceedings in practice was fo
Hence, proper a seized/impoun conclusion to fi application of m in the present sought.
The report has and events hap
I, solemnly sta my knowledge of it is false.”
7.1 Similarly, the ap involved in the asse stage of issuing notic assessment order. T learned Additional C authority is reproduc
“Affidavit in 4239M2023)
4238M2023)
I, Anu Krishna
Delhi, having O
IP Estate, Delh sed on the appraisal reporis and seized/
per the Law.
es of the range head and the assessing offic oor i.e. 19th floor in the Air India Building th were called by the range head or sought by cases. The AO had to discuss the assessm assesse etc. across the table with the range scussion basis as such type of search/surve ature. Furthermore, approvals are granted fo ment years in combined manner to save the nt and to protect the interest of revenue as d s have already been done to conclude the holistic and logical conclusion. In the instan ollowed.
and regular discussions, analysis of appraisa nded materials have been taken place to reac finalise the assessment orders and in this wa mind was there to conclude the assessment t case along with other such cases where been prepared by recollecting the memories, ppened at that time.
te that the contents of this affidavit are true t and beliefand that it conceals nothing and pproving authority also deposed essments were regularly discu ce for query latter to the stage
The content of the affidavit fil
Commissioner of Income-tax i ced as under:
n case of Usha S. Salvi for A.Y.20
A. Y.2013-14 (ITA 4237M2023), A. Y.20
Aggarwal, Commissioner of Income Tax, App
Office address at Room No. 108, Drum Shap hi- 110002, do hereby solemnly affirm and Smt. Usha Satish Salvi er (AO) were he discussion y the AO to ment records, head on the ey cases are or more than resources of deliberations assessment nt case, such al report and ch the logical ay, thorough proceedings approval is all the facts to the best of that no part d that all issues ussed since the of making draft ed by the then i.e. the arriving
012-13 (ITA
014-15 (ITA peals (AU)-4, ped Building, state in the case of Usha S
4237M2023), A (1) In search c possession of t order is not a o the Assessing examine the re assessment o and the whol giving approv
He comes with content of the r is given in just
(2) The approv was received, day. The Add the case sinc questionnaire
Assessing Off may not be bro department is Assessing Offic and the Addl.C a practice to w
Income Tax Dep
(3) In this case were at the s sometimes the and sometimes case. The meet held on a reg
Assessing Offic
(4) The modific
The monitoring investigation a being given. Th given and no meeting with th the process fro changes in th
Therefore, ther draft assessme discussion with (5) I, the Add application of m u/s. 153D and was assigned t

S. Salvi for A. Y.2012-13(ITA 42392023), A.Y.2
A. Y.2014-15 (ITA 4238M2023) as under:
case, the search material and relevant reco the Assessing Officer and the approval of the one-day affair, it is done after a series of discu
Officer. The Assessing Officer and the Ad ecords on regular basis. Therefore, the appr order is given after a number of meeting e case is understood. I have seen the rec val of the case. The record is with the Asses h the records for discussion and after unders record, approval is given. It is not a case wh one day.
al was given on the same day as the letter f does not mean that the case has been seen l.CIT and the Assessing officer both are ce the issue of the notices and before s e to the assessee, the record is exami ficer and the Addl.CIT both on a regul ought on the record because generally, the pr that we don't write order sheet of the meet cer. The reason for the same is that the Asse
CIT meet a number of times every day. Theref write each and every meeting with the Assessi partment.
e the offices of the range head and the asse same floor i.e. 19th floor in the Air Ind discussion or meetings were called for by the s meetings were sought by the AO to discus ting between the Assessing Officer and the Ad ular basis as I have already said in the a cer and the Addl.CIT meet very often.
cations or amendments are suggested on re g is done on regular basis and at every s and the examination of the records, the s herefore, it is not possible to submit all the order sheet is being maintained for disc he Assessing Officer. Actually the Addl.CIT is om the start of the assessment process. Th he assessment order, if any, is a continuo re is no need to change the draft assessment ent order is being prepared after a due delib h the Assessing Officer.
di,CIT in the case at that time is confirmin mind was done in the case when the order w d I was involved in the case from the day wh to the charge.
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
2013-14 (ITA ord is in the Assessment ussions with ddl.CTT both roval to the gs are held cords before ssing Officer.
standing the ere approval for approval only on that involved in sending the ned by the ar basis. It ractice of the ting with the ssing Officer fore, it is not ing Officer in essing officer dia Building, e range head ss the group ddl.CIT were above point, egular basis.
stage of the uggestion is suggestions cussion and s involved in herefore, the ous process.
order as the beration and ng that due was approved hen the case

1, solemnly sta my knowledge of it is false.”
7.2 The learned DR by the assessee sup mind by the approvi by the AO and appro mind, the contention rejected. In this rega ld DR is reproduced a “……………….
2. With regard application of submitted that applying her m approval. As i records but it i that she had s done by AO. Af as well as the process was fo only after the R shows that the 153D.
3. In this regar seized materi case where h discussions.
4. Regarding a in judicious ma
JCIT in her af done. The di judgement'. It every way, se discussion has central range, with no complic corrections wer
It is also subm ate that the contents of this affidavit are true t and belief and that it conceals nothing and R submitted that no evidences pporting his contention of non ng authority and in view of the oving authority deposing prope ns of ld counsel of the assessee ard, contents of written submiss as under:
d to the ground raised by the assesse reg mind while granting approval us 153D of the Ld JCIT had duly applied her mind. It wa mind that she had suggested some change nformed by the AO, the draft order is not s humbly submitted that if a senior officer ha suggested some changes then the same woul ffidavits have also been filed by both officers e Range head, wherein they have confirm ollowed, various meetings were held on regula
Range head was satisfied the approval was g e JCIT had applied her mind before granting a rd it is pertinent to mention that in the prese ial consists of only 3 Annexures. Thus th huge seized material is there requiring assessee's claim that JCIT should have appli anner and then drawn conclusions it is submi ffidavit has clearly admitted that due app ictionary meaning of judicious says 'sho is submitted that if the assessment order eized material is just a few documents a s been held many times in person, as per th considering the sensitive nature of cases, a cations can be called judicious. In fact, in this re suggested by the Range head before passin mitted that, in a situation where no additiono
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi s i.e. the AO, ed that due ar basis and granted. This approval u/s ent case the his is not a g extensive ied her mind itted that the lication was owing good is correct in and already he practice in simple order s case, some ng the order.
or deletion or any correction agrees with AO
5. Regarding a years it is subm
AYrs are clearl this regard it i for each AY, ev
6. Reliance is decision in the 17 & 28, Mumb the copy of app in favour of re that case also categorically s approval u/s 1
8. We have consid additional grounds r assessment order pa the approving auth application of the m approval granted by under:
“To,
DCIT-CC-4(4)
Mumbai.
Approval U/s Usha Satish S
2016-17 - reg.
Please refer to Draft: assessm
153C of the I T of the I T Act fo
Act, 1961 subj order, a copy of to the order is required or suggested and the O, a simple approval can also be said to suffic assessee's contention that there is single app mitted that different approval has been grant ly mentioned. It is only an approval on a sin is submitted that in case different pages had ven then the sum and substance would have b placed on Hon'ble ITAT MUMBAI BENCH "
case of Pratibha Pipes & Structurals Ltd, DCI bai dated 10 -04-2019 (copy enclosed). In tha proval was not available but still the decisio evenue after considering the facts and circum affidavit of the Range head was filed wh stated in his affidavit that he had issued
53D.
dered the rival submission of th raised by the assessee i.e. assa assed on the ground that appr hority is mechanical manner mind. For ready reference, a co y the approving authority is 153D of the I T Act for assessment in the alvi (PAN-AQSPS6935J) for A.Ys. 2010-11 to ---------------------------- the above.
ment orders in the abovementioned case u/s T Act, 1961 for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2015-16 and or A.Y. 2016-17 are hereby approved u/s 15
ject to the corrections made therein. After f the same may be submitted to this office.”
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi ce.
proval for all ted as all the ngle page. In d been used been same.
"C", MUMBAI
IT, Cent. Cir.
at case even on was given mstances. In erein it was d necessary e parties on the ailing impugned roval granted by r and without opy of the said reproduced as case of Smt o 2015-16 &
143(3) r.w.s.
d u/s 143(3)
3D of the I T r passing the 8.1 The learned cou that except draft asse the approving autho granted on the same manner for all the authority has merely order but not specifie we find that except ground, no documen application of mind the assessee. Wherea representative has fi and the approving allegations raised by filed by the assesse
Assessing Officer and their respective affid assessee the main r manner without app the decisions relied u the Assessing Officer enclosing assessme material. In the affid stated by the Ass unsel for the assessee has ma essment orders, no material wa rity. He has further alleged tha e date of seeking such approval e assessment year involved.
y directed for certain modificat ed said modification in the appr such allegation in support of ntary evidence to support the all by the approving authority hav as, on the other hand, the learne iled affidavits from the then A authority, wherein they ha the assessee but no counter af ee to controvert the deposition d the additional Commissioner o davits. In the decisions relied ratio is that approval granted plication of mind is not sustain upon of coordinate benches main r only forwarded letter seeking a nt records or appraisal rep davits filed before us, it has bee sessing Officer as well as Smt. Usha Satish Salvi roval order. But f the additional legations of non ve been filed by ed departmental ssessing Officer ave denied the ffidavit has been n made by the of income-tax in d upon by the d in mechanical nable in law. In n allegation that approval without port on seized n unequivocally the Additional

Commissioner of Inc assessments were d between the two auth same floor of office approving authority
Assessing Officer an appraisal report and in the draft assessme was granted. In the assessee the fact of between the two auth on record and therefo considered. We fur suggested to the Ass which have been c assessment order pa authority approved t after due application the order itself sho through drat assess therein. In the case modification suggest which distinguish th upon by the assesse come-tax that all the issues discussed on regular basis from horities as both the authorities e building. The ld DR subm after considering the queries nd the reply of the assessee seized record, had examined e ent order properly and thereafte e cases cited by the learned c f discussion on various issues horities from time to time has n fore in those decisions this aspe rther note that certain mod sessing Officer in the draft ass carried out by the Assessing assed, which also shows that the draft order not in mechanic n of mind. The fact of modificati ows that the approving autho sment order and analyed the es relied upon by the assess ted by approving authority is he case of the assessee with t ee. In similar circumstances a Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
No. 7120/Mum/201
upheld validity of app observing as under:
“16. We hav available on below. There provisions of s the Addl.Com assessment o
1961. It is als at para 7 had of approval u from the A No.Addl.CIT/
also not in di whatsoever, w before the AO has taken the filing addition to be apprised assessee. Ad clarified that to the Addl. C of the Act, w was further s the office of A cases were t having been not sufficient department is Addl.CIT, or n approval gra assessment f assessee tha
153D before
1961. Assessing Officer and the appr h of the Tribunal in the case of n ITA No. 3874 to 3876/Mum
16 in AY 2007-08 to 2009-10
proval granted under section 15
ve heard both the parties, perused record and gone through the orders e is no doubt with regard to the fact section 153D, the AO needs to take prior mmissioner of the range in charge before order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the In so not in dispute that the AO, in his asse d categorically stated that the mandator u/s 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ha
Addl.CIT, Central Range- 4, Mumbai
CR-4/Approvl-153D/2012-13 dated 25-0
ispute that the assessee has not raised with regard to the issue of approval u/
O or before the first appellate authority.
e legal ground for the first time before th nal ground of appeal. Therefore, the whol d in the light of above facts and also the dmittedly, the department, in reply to R neither copy of approval request letter fi
Commissioner, nor copy of approval gran was found in the assessment order folde stated that in the 153D approval folder
Addl.CIT, Range-4, the approval granted traced. The assessee claims that mere taken approval u/s 153D in the assess t and what is required to be seen is s able to provide copy of approval letter g not. Since the department has categorica anted u/s 153D of the Act is not ava folder, obviously, benefit of doubt goes in at no such approval has been taken by passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A o
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
0 and 2011-12,
53D of the act of the materials of authorities t that as per approval from e passing any ncome-tax Act, essment order ry requirement as been taken i vide letter
03-2013. It is any objection, s 153D either
The assessee he Tribunal by le issue needs conduct of the RTI application iled by the AO nted u/s 153D er. However, it maintained in in other group mentioning of sment order is s whether the granted by the lly stated that ailable in the n favour of the y the AO u/s of the I.T. Act,

12-13; Rs.1,69,18,719/- for a 0,000/- for assessment year 201
qua the issue in dispute are Satish Salve provided accommod up, a search u/s 132 of the Act
Shri Satish Salve, Chief Financia nment Pvt. Ltd., along with the Nadiawala Grandson Enterta he ‘Nadiyadwala’ group) on 08.1
ses of Shri Satish Salve, certai jewellary worth Rs.2,69,780/- ound and seized. The document tish Salve comprises of few doc arth Pictures ( in short Samarat of assessee, which revealed in wami Samarth Picture out of its of search, statement of Shri Sa admitted that he was maintaini marth’ on behalf of his wife Sm course of assessment, the As document belonging/related to ng with scanned copy of the seiz
6 to page 12 of the impugned as ts indicate payment in cash as Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
14-15. that in view of dation entries to was carried out al Officer of M/s e search carried ainment Private
12.2015. During in incrementing
- and cash of seized from the uments relating th Pictures) i.e.
ncurring of cash bank accounts.
atish Salve was ing entire affairs mt. Usha Satish ssessing Officer the assessee. A zed document is sessment order.
well as through cheque on behalf of various parties inclu
Rajat, Nandu and dir observed that though be entered in the b expenditures were no Officer has aggrega amounting to Rs.1,53
asked the assessee to relevant part of show reproduced as under “4. As per th expenditure in amounting to R books of accou with supportin
1,53,14,341/- and added to y of expenses tab
A. Y.
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
10.2 During the cour submitted that M/s
‘Rave Party Project’ w
Ground Zero Inc., b production house. S
Salve (i.e. the husba f the proprietary concern of t uding Shri O.P. Sing, Shri Pra rector, Lionbel editor etc. The A h the payments made by chequ books of accounts of the asse ot entered in books of accounts ated the cash expenditure fo
3,14,341/- and in the show cau o explain source of such cash e w cause notice issued by the Ass
:
he seized papers, your concern had incu n the production of the movie "Rave Par
Rs. 1,53,14,341/- which has been stated to unts of your concern. Under such circumstanc ng evidences why the expenses aggregat should not be treated as unexplained cash e your total income for the relevant A. Ys. as pe bulated below :-
Cash Expenses (R
6,45,572
1,39,18,769
7,50,000
rse of the assessment proceedin
Suresh Jajera HUF was produ with Mr. Naveen Sharma i.e. pr but M/s Suresh Jajera HUF
So, Mr. Suresh Jajera approac and of the assessee) for service
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi s. The Assessing for three years use notice issued expenditure. The sessing Officer is urred cash rty Project"
o be out of ces explain ting to Rs.
expenditure er break up
Rs.) ngs, the assessee ucing film titled roprietor of M/s did not own a ched Mr. Satish es of production house of assessee n producing said film further explained tha
Suresh Jajera HUF a HUF was responsibl
Picture to be utilized
Sharma for making agreement, Samarth received from M/s expenditure for mak
Suresh Jajra. Furthe the said agreement w agreement, the produ
Rs.1,50,00,000/- for of the said film. Up t were received by M/s which is recorded in amount of Rs.1.19 cr
HUF in cash which expenses of the film
Sharma till Septembe funds had been recei not been completed increased to Rs.3,25

namely M/s Shree Swami Sama under the banner of assessee at as per the terms of agreemen and M/s Samarth Picture, M/
le for transferring all funds to d as per the direction of M/s g film titled ‘Rave Party Proje
Picture was required to provide
Suresh Jajra HUF and incur king the said film from time t er, the assessee submitted that was officially documented. Und ucer i.e. M/s Suresh Jajra HU the purpose of the production to September 26, 2012 funds o s Samarth Picture from M/s Su the bank account of the asses rores had been received from M had been transferred to Mr. O m as per the direction of Mr.
er 26, 2012. As per the terms o ived, however, the ‘Rave Party P at that time. The budget of th
5,00,000/- due to financial mi
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi e. The assessee nt between M/s
/s Suresh Jajra o M/s Samarth
Naveen Kumar ect’. Under the details of funds rred for various to time, to Mr.
t on 12.04.2012
der the terms of UF was to invest and completion f Rs.1.57 crores uresh Jajra HUF ssee. Further an /s Suresh Jajra
O.P. Sing for the Naveen Kumar of agreement the Project’ film had he said film was iss-management by Mr. Navin Kuma
26.09.2012 had be Rs.2,50,00,000/- to time to time the asse and cash to M/s Su incurred in cash and details were provided the above submissio
‘line producer’ of the on account of M/s received did not belo
‘pass through entity assessee filed a retr
Salve. But said retra to lack to requisite evidences including
The assessee explain
HUF were in the nat as stated by the husb the statement record statement, Shri Sati loans from Suresh Ja during the statemen failure on the part o r Sharma, accordingly, an und een executed for increase o
Rs.3,25,00,000/-. As per the a essee forwarded the details of re uresh Jajra and also the details d cheque for the production of th d through e-mail to Mr. Suresh J n, the assessee claimed that sh said film and all the expenses a Suresh Jajra HUF and the ng to the assessee but the asse y’. During the assessment p raction statement of her husba ction was rejected by the Asses affidavit along with supportin sworn statement of ‘panchas’
ned that payments received fro ture of ‘advance’ receipt instead band of the assessee i.e. Shree ded u/s 132(4) of the Act. In ish Salve stated that said paym ajra HUF and he mistakenly sta nt recorded u/s 132(4) of the of the assessee in explaining th
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi he film. The said
Jajra. In view of he was only the and receipt were said expenses essee was only a roceedings, the and Shri Satish sing Officer due ng documentary
’ i.e. witnesses.
m Suresh Jajra d of ‘cash loans’
Satish Salve, in n the retraction ments were not ated that as loan
Act. In view of he source of the cash expenditure inc order passed u/s 143
unexplained cash ex years 2012-13 to 201
Particulars
(a)
Unexplained ca
(b)
Unexplained ca
(c)
Unexplained ca
11. On further appe assessee that the as the entire expenditur
HUF. The relevant fin
“6.2. One of the movie wa were provide lent its name
Shree Swami escalation or the movie. I appellant. Th produced by been entered
"PRODUCER"
as "JOINT PR agreement are General
Scope of work curred, the Assessing Officer in 3(3) r.w.s. 153C dated 27.12.20
xpenditure u/s 69C of the Act
14-15 as under:
A ash expenditure u/s 69C for AY 2012-13
6
ash expenditure u/s 69C for AY 2013-14
1
ash expenditure u/s 69C for AY 2014-15
7
eal, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the c ssessee was merely a pass thro re was incurred on behalf of th nding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reprodu the primary contention of the appellant as being made by M/s Suresh Jajra HUF d by them and that the appellant has e for this purpose. It is further stated th
Samarth Pictures is not responsible for a financial mismanagement in the produc am unable to accept this contention he agreement of film production dt. 12.0
the appellant shows that the agreeme d by Smt. Usha S. Salvi in her capa and Sh. Naveen Kumar Sharma in his c
RODUCER". Some of the relevant clauses e extracted and placed below:-
Contents of the Agreement
WHEREAS producer desire to produce a M in colour 35 MM in Hindi Language n
PARTY", starring Divyendu Sharma, Rajk and Others, directed by Rajat Mukherje referred to as the "said FILM".
c. It is agreed by Joint Producer that they the project in time frame fixed by the prod
Schedule A as per mutually agreed by both d. It is agreed by Joint Producer that if p
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
Amount (Rs)
6,45,572/-
,39,18,769/-
7,50,000/- contention of the ough entity and he Suresh Jajra uced as under:
is that F, funds merely hat M/s any cost ction of of the 04.2012
ent has acity as capacity s of the Motion Picture amed "RAVE kumar Yadav ee hereinafter y will execute ducer, As per h the parties.
project is not Tentative Budget of the Film
Credits
Records and Accounts completed according to the schedule (Inc
Period of 30 Days) then producer has the the complete project from Joint Producer right to allot the project to other Product producer will do himself as the case may b f. It is agreed by Joint Producer that they only to rights expressly granted by Produc terms of this agreement. All IPR alway
Producer.
f a.
Producers hereby agree to inves
1,50,00,000/-(Rupees One Core Fifty Lacs purpose of production and completion
Picture in all respects, including censor and music thereof, and for the purpose of prepa final release print of the said Picture. Th expected cost of the production as per estimates prepared jointly by both the p
Schedule" B"
b. Joint Producer hereby agrees and ackno he will inform well in advance i.e. 7 da producer for requirement of funds.
c. Joint Producer hereby agrees and ackno producer will release fund after providing expected expenses.
b. And it is further agreed that all the publ advertisement, prints, trailers, and paraph said Picture will clearly mention therein as Opening Title:
SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH PICTURES
Present in Associations With Zero Ground inc & H. N. Entertainment.
Title Before the Film Start
Produce by SHREE SWAMI SAMARTH PICT
Naven Kumar Sharma
Navin Parmar d a. Producer shall keep or cause to be kept
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi be.
y are entitled cer as per the ys rest with st upto
Rs.
s only) for the of the said d background aration of one his amount is r the budget arties As per owledges that ays before to owledges that the details of icity material, hernalia of the a:-
TURES at a mutually

Representation and Warranties agreed upon location all books of account and all contracts for the business and ope
Film Project. Each of the parties shall hav inspect the books of account and records business and operations of the film proj week notice to the other.
b. All the money inflow and out flow for th be through and approved by produce
Producer.
d
Producer represents and warrants to Jo that:
i. It has the right and capacity to en
Agreement and fully perform all its hereunder, ii. It owns all right, title and interest in Project and the Licensed Materials, inclu limited to copyright and the Interac
Intellectual rights are or shall be wholl
Producer or the Producer has acquired or the necessary rights from third parties same for use in the Project.
iii. The Producers have not created any mortgage encumbrance or right of whatsoever on release or the distributio and exploitation rights of the said Picture f territories of the World or on the prints materials, Music, satellite rights, Ring T tunes or any other such rights including may come existence in future, of the sa any of the territories of the World or on recoveries and realizations from the exhibition and exploitation of the said Pict the territories of the world or on the negati or other materials of the said Picture howsoever.
iv. The Producer will invest the said am frame and should not affect the shooting to unavailability of funds.
v. If the producer unable to invest the fu
Joint Producer has right to take the fina third party and continue the project, in th
Producer will return the amount invested without any interest or profit, and also pro any rights on the said film and issue the Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
6.3.1. From t rewards of th the appellan transaction w borne from th single clause
6.4. As far a Kumar Sharm it is merely a have been la
(Joint Produce unsigned affi project, cost e was from his the film at the shall adequat from the follow
"13) That I, on confirm to, at harmless the Producer.
d a. The Parties agree that if the Film p produced and provided the Parties mutua it is commercially advantageous to do so agree to enter into a distribution agree distribution company to provide its services the Project in connection with the distrib
Film.
b. The Parties agree that all Net Prof exploitation of the Project shall be shared a 80% to Producer and 20% to Joint Producer a. It is further agreed that after the recoup
Producer of the amounts financed under th all the liens and charges credited to Produc agreement, or any other clause, shall com and thereafter the copyrights, Intellect
Rights and other rights of the film, shall b by the Producers and Joint Producer proportion.
the above, it is clear evident that the ris he movie 'Rave Party' lie with the produ t. The appellant's contention that the was on behalf of M/s Suresh Jajra HUF he above agreement. There is no referen to this effect in the entire agreement.
as the affidavit dt. 26.09.2012 of Mr. N ma is considered (Pages 38 - 41 of PB), I fi a mechanism by which the terms and ex aid down between Mr. Naveen Kumar er) and the appellant. In the said stamp idavit, Sh. Sharma has referred to delay escalation and has stated that mismana side. He has agreed to guarantee the se e minimum price of Rs. 4.25 crores and tely compensate the producers. It is also wing 2 clauses of the affidavit:- n behalf of M/s. Ground Zero INC., decla t my own expense, indemnify, save, an e Producers and its successors, lice
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi project is co- ally determine o, the Parties ement with a s to distribute bution of the fits from the as follows:
r.
pment by the his agreement cer under this me to an end tual Property be held jointly r in 80: 20
sks and ucer i.e.
e entire
F is not nce or a Naveen ind that xecution r Singh ped but y in the agement ll out of that he evident are and nd hold ensees, assigns, age against any obligations, lia expenses (inc sustained by breach of any or deliverable any reliance obligations, or 14) That, I on declare and c are the abso said Film, fre and the said any event sta
6.4.1. From t rewards of th
Pictures i.e. t this affidavit d
6.4.2. The f undertaken b capacity as a dt. 26.09.201
of paper book nts, representatives, and affiliates fro and all claims, demands, causes of ability, loss and damage in business, cos cluding reasonable attorneys' fees), incu reason of or ansing out of any breach or y of the warranties, representations, oblig es herein agreed upon and made by me, upon any such warranties, represen r agreements; n behalf of M/s. Ground Zero INC., do confirm that M/s. Shree Swami Samarth P lute Copyright Holders of all the Rights ee from all encumbrances as mentioned rights vest exclusively with them and s and relinquished and surrendered to them the above, it is re-affirmed that the ris he movie belong to M/s. Shree Swami S the proprietary concern of the appellant.
does not speak of M/s Suresh Jajra HUF fact that the movie production has by M/s Shree Swami Samarth Pictures a producer is also evident from the unde
12 submitted by the appellant in pages 4
k Page.
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi herein.
shall in m:"
ks and Samarth
Again,
F.
s been s in its ertaking
46 to 48

Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
6.4.3. The ap undertaking
Sharma has a “2. I solely ta
Rs 425 (Sale by Suresh B
Pictures."
I am of the v credibility as undertaking.
Mukerjee and signed this do hold such a transaction?
affidavit stati
President of U no concurren credibility of better?

appellant has referred to clause No. 2
dt. 26.09.2012 wherein, Sh. Naveen affirmed as follows:- ake responsibility to sell the said Film at p
Price) Lac which intimated to me (Groun
B Jajra HUF Partner of Shree Swami S view that such a self-serving statement s can be seen from the second page
The witnesses are Sh. O P Singh, Sh d Sh. Rajiv Ranjan. Sh. Suresh B Jajra h ocument. This being the case, would it be a person as the sole architect of this To draw an analogy, if I were to dr ing that I agree to buy the White House fr
USA for a sum of Rs. 100 crores where t nce by the other party, does that ma the undertaking vis-a-vis the other par
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi nd Zero)
Samarth has no of this h. Rajat has not e fair to s entire raw an from the there is ake the rty any 6.4.4 To be su follows:-
"З. Net Profit (
Balance) will no money from Zero)."
The above ma
M/s Shree Sw is in this back
11.1 The Ld. CIT(A) loose papers incurred accounts of the asse sheet for financial accounted for three creditors and other
CIT(A) noted that the in balance sheet as o
CIT(A) is reproduced
“6.7. The balan has accounted creditors and unsecured loa
Suresh B Jajra balance sheet totally different
6.8. Contrary to any evidence t and that the ap that M/s Sures the same. Unfo during the sea furnished befor the appellant understanding the appellant is ure, clause 3 of the above undertaking re
(Sales Prices after TDS Less COP Rs. 325
be taken by Shree Swami Samarth Pictur m this Net Profit will be shared with me ( akes it clear that profits of the movie be wami Samarth Pictures i.e. the appellant kground that the case needs to be examin further observed that expense d in cheque were duly entered essee. The Ld. CIT(A) referred year 2012-13, wherein the movie projects including ‘Rave particulars were shown projec ere is no entry related to Mr. Su on 31.03.2013. The relevant fin as under:
nce sheet for FY 2012-13 of the appellant s d. for 3 movie projects including 'Rave Par other particulars are shown project wise ans are concerned, they are from 4 partie a. There is no entry related to Suresh B Jajra as on 31.03.2013. Thus, the books of acco t picture.
o its written submissions, the appellant has n that the movie was produced by M/s Suresh ppellant was only a name lender. If the appe sh Jajra HUF was actually the producer, it ne ortunately, no such documents seem to have arch, and most certainly, no such evidenc re me as well (as part of submissions before had its own separate financial relat with M/s Suresh Jajra HUF, but the fact r s the producer of the movie and has right to Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
5 Lacs =
res and (Ground elong to only. It ned.”
es appearing in in the books of to the balance assessee had e Party’ and the ct-wise. The Ld.
uresh Jajra HUF nding of the Ld.
shows that it rty' and the . As far as es including a HUF in the ount paint a not produced h Jajra HUF ellant claims eeds to prove e been found ce has been e AO). Maybe tionships or remains that all risk and rewards arisin from M/s Sure if a builder we investors, the transactions a reason. The on with M/s Sures simple fact of expenses whic the AO was rig for the movie, f producer, as un
11.2 Further, the ass mentioned in the lo against amount of R assessee is reproduce
AY
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Total

AY
1
2012
2
2013
3
2014

ng therefrom. The funding of the movie by av sh Jajra HUF is of no consequence. To draw ere to construct a building by pooling funds f e builder is still accountable for all th nd cannot cite any investor who provided nus remains firmly on the appellant to expla sh Jajra HUF, terms of agreement between th f the matter is that the appellant has in h are not explained enough. Hence, I am of t ght in bringing the unaccounted cash expendit for which the appellant was involved in the nexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act.”
sessee contended that actual ca oose papers was only of Rs.1,
Rs.1,53,14,341/-. The bifurcatio ed as under:
Alleged Cash Expenditure (Rs.)
6,45,572/-
1,35,51,163/-
-
1,41,96,735/- however rejected the content ned the additions observing as u dent that the appellant has cash receipts ut has not come clean on the same. As regar ually spent, they are taxable u/s 69C. Th naccounted cash and not having been dispu e appellant, are confirmed to be taxed u/s 69
he following additions are confirmed for ea
Addition confirmed u/s 69C
Addition confirmed u
69A
-13
6,45,572/-
-
-14
1,35,51,163/-
3,67,606/-
7,50,000/-
Total
1,41,96,735/-
11,17,606/-
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi hem, etc. The ncurred cash the view that ture incurred e capacity as ash expenditure
,41,96,735/- as on given by the tion the of the under:
s and cash rds the sums he remaining uted of being
9A of the Act.
ach of the 3
u/s Total addition confirmed
6,45,572/-
1,39,18,769/-
7,50,000/-
1,53,14,341/-

Ld. counsel for the assessee efore the lower authorities and ‘pass through entity’ for incurrin f the movie on behalf of Shri Sur mitted that movie has now been h Jajra HUF for distribution a ht over the movie which in fact
Assessing Officer. The assessee o Shri Mr. Suresh Jajra HUF a e. The Ld. counsel submitted t nt, the addition has been made essee’s husband without any c sh Jajra. The Ld. counsel cont ht to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A de regarding the nature of the hat assessee provided a PAN re us, the assessee also file was not filed before the lower belonged to M/s Suresh Jajra s not a loan and the expenses ovie was also on account of M/
see was only a pass through that the statement on the b
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi resh Jajra HUF.
n completed and and release and t can be verified submitted that and it was not a that during the on the basis of ross verification tended that this A) that no cross e amount. It is number of Mr.
ed a registered authorities) to HUF hence the incurred on the /s Suresh Jajra entity. The Ld.
basis of which addition was made, assessee.
13. On the contrar relied on the order of Satish Salve husban affairs of the assess recorded u/s 132(4) amount, Rs.1.64 cror unaccounted cash. T without any affidavi referred to para 7.9 o
Satish Salve himself by Swami Samarth which was done outs the agreement date appearing in capac
Sharma is appearing further referred to t discussed by the Ld that there was no m being claimed as undertaking given by and not signed by Sh evidence was filed to has been retracted by the h ry, the Ld. Departmental Repr f the lower authorities and subm nd of the assessee who used to see concern, has explained in ) of the Act on 09.12.2015 th res was received from Mr. Sures
This statement was retracted it or providing any document of the impugned order and subm stated that cash of Rs.1.53 cror
Picture towards project of Rav side books of accounts. The Ld ed 12.04.2012 where Smt.
ity of the producer and Mr.
g in capacity of the joint produc the affidavit of Mr. Navin Kum d. CIT(A) in para 6.4 of the im mention of Suresh jajara , from received. He further subm y Shri Navin Kumar Sharma is hri Suresh Jajra. The Ld. DR su o prove that movie was being p
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi resentative (DR) mitted that Shri o look after the n his statement hat out of total sh Jajra HUF as after two years ts. The Ld. DR mitted that Shri res was incurred ve Party Project
. DR referred to Usha Salve is . Navin Kumar cer. The Ld. DR mar Sharma, as mpugned Officer, m whom cash is itted that the self serving one ubmitted that no produced by Mr.

Suresh Jajra HUF a According to the Ld.
with the assessee. Th cash expenditure o production of the mo accounts of the asse is appearing in the b in terms of section explain source and n the part of the ass sustaining the additio
14. We have heard the relevant materia source and nature of the document seized assessee. It is not i been incurred. The intermediate party a Mr. Suresh Jajra HU in cheque on the pro the books of accoun expenditure incurred of accounts of the assessee and therefo and the assessee was only for . DR all risks and rewards of he Ld. DR submitted that there of Rs.1.5 crores has been in ovie and which is not appearing essee although expenditure incu books of accounts of the assesse
69C of the Act, the assessee w nature of the expenditure and d sessee, the lower authorities on in terms of section 69C of th rival submissions of the parti al on record. The only issue is f the cash expenditure incurred d from the premises of the h n dispute that the cash expen claim of the assessee is t and expenses have been incurr
F, but we find that all the expen duction of the movie have been nts of the assessee and ther d was also required to be enter assessee, which has not bee ore onus lies on the assessee to Smt. Usha Satish Salvi r name lending.
the project lied is no dispute as ncurred on the g in the books of urred in cheque ee and therefore was required to due to failure on are justified in e Act.
ies and perused with regard to as appearing in husband of the nditure has not that she is an red on behalf of nditure incurred n duly entered in efore, the cash red in the books en done by the o explain source of such expenditure.
received from Mr. S assessee claimed tha verification from M/s assessee is claiming t
Suresh Jajra, the on the Ld. Assessing Off expenditure but no s assessee wants to establish that cash w period of more than taking any action in provision of the Inc making such claim f shifting the burden
Accordingly, we rejec the finding of the Ld.
the merit for all the th
15. In the result, th are dismissed.
Order pronoun (SANDEEP SING
JUDICIAL M

. The assessee is claiming amo
Suresh Jajra HUF. Before the at Assessing Officer should ha s Suresh Jajra HUF. In our op that said cash expenditure was nus lies on the assessee to prod ficer or the Ld. CIT(A) along with such effort was made by the as shift his onus to the Asses was advanced by Shri Suresh Ja n 12 years has elapsed and th the hands of Mr. Suresh Jajra come-tax has already expired for making enquiry from Mr Su on Shri Suresh Jajra HUF is o ct the contention of the assess
CIT(A) on the issue in dispute.
hree years is accordingly confirm he appeals of the assessee for all ced in the open Court on 23/0
- GH KARHAIL)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA
Smt. Usha Satish Salvi
Ld. CIT(A) the ave made cross pinion, since the incurred by Mr.
duce him before h source of cash ssessee and the ssing Officer to ajra HUF. Now a he limitation for HUF within the and therefore, uresh jajera and of no relevance.
see and uphold
The addition on med.
l the three years
01/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Mumbai;
Dated: 23/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu

Smt. Usha Satish Salvi gistrar) umbai