Itxa/216/2002 Of M/S Video Master v. The Oint Commissioner Of Income-Tax

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.216 OF 2002 Messrs Video Master.. Appellantv/s.Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,Special Range.21, Mumbai.. Respondent Mr.J.D.Mestry i/by Mr.A.K.Jesani for appellant. Mr.R.V.Desai, senior counsel with Ms.S.V.Bharuchaand Mr.Vijay Kantharia for respondent. found that the retraction of the statement by Shri D.N.Shah after a month was after thought. 3. The Tribunal observed thus- "Thus, the allegation levelled by thelearned counsel that the statements recordedu/s.132(4) were not voluntary is without anybasis and the same is rejected. The veryfact that the subsequent retraction ofstatement by Shri D.N.Shah was after about amonth makes it abundantly clear that theretraction were an after thought and theoriginal statement was given voluntarilywithout any duress or pressure.""There is nothing in the affidavit filed byShri D.N.Shah which would prove that thesearch party intimidated him for making thedisclosure of Rs.3 crores.""If Shri D.N.Shah would not have made thisconfessional statement, the Department couldhave continued the search and thereafter,the Department could have investigated theentire matter on the basis of the variousdocuments seized during the course ofsearch. By making the disclosure of Rs.3crores, Shri D.N.Shah stopped the entireprocess of further investigation as theDepartment accepted the disclosure andclosed further investigation. After makingsuch an offer of settlement in the form ofconfessional statement which is alsoaccepted by the Department, the retractionfiled by Shri D.N.Shah after about a monthfrom the date of confessional statementcannot be considered as a valid retractionand the same is nothing but a well planneddevice to frustrate the efforts of theDepartment to unearth unaccounted funds byresorting to action u/s.132(4) of the Act.In view of the discussion above, theretraction filed by the assessee istherefore, an after-thought and the same isrejected.""Annexure-A is a bunch of 13 loose papers,pages-1 & 2 contain rough scribblings whichare actually connected with the films madeby this group. These papers were seizedfrom the residence of Shri D.N.Shah. PageNo.1, on the front side contains certainnotings as we have mentioned above. Thenotings on this page indicate payment out ofbusiness receipts in India by Shri D.N.Shah.These figures cannot be in one or two digitsas explained by Shri D.N.Shah. Thesetransactions are among the film producer anddistributors, therefore, such transactionsmust be in lakhs only as contended by thelearned DR. These accounts had beenmaintained very systematically. The various amounts mentioned appear to be collectionmade or to be made from various territorieswhich would normally be in lakhs of rupees.Shri D.N.Shah also admitted in his statementthat part of the writing on page no.1 & 1Awhich are in blue ink are written by him.It appears from notings that pages no.1 & 1Aare related to each other as figure of 3.8lakhs, 55 lakhs, 14 lakhs and 76 lakhs arethere in both pages. This is quite obviousfrom these pages that the assessee is havingunaccounted transactions running into croresin his file business. Annexure A to Page-97seized from Ratnajyot Industrial Estate(Departmental Paper Book Page-34) indicatesthat the assessee was making large amount ofpayment in cash which have not beenreflected in the books of account. It wasbrought to our notice by the learned DR thatno explanation was given at the time searchwith respect to these cash payments. Thisalso supports the view that the assessee wasindulge in cash transactions on a largescale. It was also found during the courseof search that the assessee was having largenumber of vouchers for expenditure whichwere signed but the amount of disbursementwas not mentioned. This evidence alsoestablishes the modus operandi of theassessee for manipulating the expenditure.The assessee did not give any explanation ofthese vouchers during the course of search.Annexure-I, pages 58, 66 to 69 (assessee’spaper book, pages 534 to 58) also revealslarge amount of transactions in cash beingreceived and paid in cash on exhibition offilms at various picture halls. Page No.58,refers to assessee’s paper book page -54, Onthe top of this page the name of the film iswritten as "Hum Se Hai Muqabala" in front of12 cinema halls Savithri and Alankar andagainst that 20 cash and 35 cash is written.These are obviously the coded figuresrelated to cash receipts on exhibition ofpicture at Savithri and Alankar picturehalls. Similarly, page no.68 and 69 ofseized material pertains to cash receiptsand payments with respect to the film "HimSe Hai Muqabala". It was also contended bythe Department that the picture "Sub Se BadaKhiladi" was produced by Keshu Ramsay,proprietor of D.M.S.Films. The film wasfinanced by Times Group. During the courseof search, it was found that M/s.D.M.S.Filmwas a benami for Times Group. It was alsoascertained that most of the expenditure forthe film was done from the office of TimesGroup. All the cheques, drafts etc., were Jain, 250 ITR 141 have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Addition of Rs.1,83,50,000/- undisclosed income made by the assessing and confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalis concluded on facts.7. No substantial question of law arises. Appealis dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) towardsofficer