AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
The appellant is running a Cinema house at Ludhiana. It filed its return for the assessment year 1983-84. It declared a taxable income of Rs. 1,10,556. The case was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated 31-3-1986. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 1,76,000 on account of payment made to three distributors.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority sustained the addition of Rs. 1,76,000. A further notice for enhancement of income for an amount of Rs. 3,16,890 was issued. The appellant showed cause. However, the plea as raised by the assessee was rejected. Thus, a total addition of Rs. 4,92,890 was made. The appellant approached the Tribunal. Its claim having been rejected, it has filed the present appeal u/s 260A of the Act.
Mr. Mittal, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the additions made by the respondents cannot be sustained.
A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows the following categorical findings:
The petitioner claimed to have made payments to the film distributors and sought deductions on that account. It has been found that "ssome of the payments purported to have been made to the three entities were in the form of bearer cheques which were encashed by some of the employees of the assessee."
The assessee disowned its books of account at various stages of the proceedings. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) a revised statement of profit and loss was filed. It had no relationship with the books of account.
The assessee''s plea that the amounts paid to the distributors represented their share has also been disbelieved.
The payments made to the three parties had "found their way back to the assessee. . . ."
Mr. Rajinder Kaura, the assessee''s employee and the Assistant Manager of the Cinema had opened the bank account. He was introduced by Mr. Bhupinder Singh, the Managing Partner of the assessee. Thus, the statement of Smt. Sneh Prabha that she did not know Mr. Rajinder Kaura has been disbelieved.
Various other findings have also been recorded. On an examination of the case we are satisfied that the Tribunal has considered all relevant aspects of the matter. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on appreciation of evidence on record. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Commissioner and by the Tribunal. No question of law much less than a substantial question of law arises. Thus, no ground for interference is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.