What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should not have deleted the disallowance solely due to the non-receipt of the remand report. The issue of expenditure disallowance was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.

The assessee failed to appear during assessment proceedings, leading to a best judgment assessment and disallowance of expenses. The assessee later provided evidence before the CIT(A), but a remand report was not furnished by the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting disallowances without proper verification, and the assessee's failure to cooperate during assessment proceedings.

ACIT vs M/S.Glamour Entertainment Private… | ITAT Mumbai 2020

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh & Ravindra

For Respondent: Mr. N. Padmanabhan-Ld. DR

आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT-16(1) M/s. Glamour Entertainment P.Ltd. बनाम/ 3rd Floor, Shamrock Aaykar Bhavan Room No.439, M.K. Road Main Avenue Road Vs. Mumbai -400 020. Santacruz (W), Mumbai- 400 054. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCG-1659-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee by : S/Shri Ajay R. Singh & Ravindra Poojary-Ld. Ars Revenue by : Mr. N. Padmanabhan-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 08/01/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 14/01/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2008-09 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No.CIT(A)-4/Tr-9/ACIT-11(1)/2014-15 dated 14/06/2017 on following grounds of appeal: -

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof 2 M/s. Glamour Entertainment Private Limited Assessment Year :2008-09 regarding the genuineness of expenses when the assessee had failed to co-operate during the assessment proceedings as well as remand proceedings.

2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

We have carefully heard the arguments advanced by both the representatives. We have also perused relevant material on record including documents placed in the paper-book. Our adjudication to the subject-matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs.

Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident corporate assessee stated to be engaged in the business of motion picture production was assessed for year under consideration on best judgement basis u/s 144 vide order dated 16/12/2010 in view of the fact that the assessee failed to comply with various hearing notices issued by Ld. AO. Consequently, in the absence of any details / documentary evidences to support the expenses of Rs.2113.45 Lacs, Ld. AO made estimated disallowance of 40% against the same. The Ld. AO also noted that the assessee failed to comply with the requirements of Section 285B since it has failed to furnish a statement in Form No. 52A, giving details of payment over Rs.50,000/- made by him during the course of production of films. The perusal of quantum assessment order would reveal that the assessee has been denied set-off of brought forward of losses of Rs.74.31 Lacs also since the said claim could not be verified. 4. Before learned CIT(A), the assessee took a stand that sufficient time was not provided to the assessee to substantiate the claims made by the assessee. It was also alleged that the facts were not properly appreciated by Ld. AO since all the information was available in Form

ACIT-16(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.GLAMOUR ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments