COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BALRAJ SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference at the instance of the Revenue made under S. 256(2) of the I T. Act, 1961, arises out of the assessment proceedings in respect of the asst. year 1960 61. The original assessee, who is now represented by his legal representatives, was a well known film artiste, who declared his total receipts at Rs. 1,07,002 from nine different pictures in the return of income filed by him on 27th July, 1960, for the accounting year ending 31st March, 1960. The total income returned included a sum of Rs. 14,000 in respect of a picture by name Chand produced by Tasviristan, which was a proprietary concern of one Kuldip Saigal, referred to by the Tribunal as "Kuldip" The written contract in respect of the picture Chand between the aasessee and Kuldip was executed on 5th April, 1958, showing that Kuldip was to pay to the assesse a sum of Rs. 25,000 for his role in the picture. Rs. 1,000 was paid on that day and the balance of Rs. 24,000 was payable before the completion of the assessee's work in the picture. The shooting of the picture commenced in November, 1958. It continued till the middle of June, 1969. The picture itself was released for exhibition in September, 1959. Out of the amount of Rs. 25,000 agreed to be paid to the assessee, the assessee had received Rs. 11,000 in the earlier accounting year ending 31st March, 1959, and the balance of Rs. 14,000 is said to have been received by the assessee in the accounting year ending 31st March, 1960.

(2.) THE ITO while making an enquiry as to the genuineness of the amount received by the assessee in respect of the picture Chand recorded the statement of the producer Kuldip, who stated before the ITO, that the agreement between him and the assessee was that the assessee was to be paid Rs. 51,000 and not Rs. 25,000 and that the producer paid Rs. 26,000 in cash to the assessee. The three items in dispute were as follows; Mode of payment Date Amount paid

(3.) THE ITO filed an appeal against this order of the AAC. The Tribunal, after having doubted the genuineness of the statement of Kuldip with regard to the payment of Rs. 6,000 said to have been made on 28th June, 1959, restored the addition of only Rs. 20,000 as against Rs. 26,000 made by the ITO. The order of the Tribunal which is annex. "B" to the statement of the case shows that this addition was made after drawing adverse inference against the assessee for not producing the record of his professional engagements and receipts. The Tribunal led itself to believe that the assessee had some record of his professional engagements and receipts because, in the absence of any written record, it would not have been possible for the assessee to admit some cash payments and to give the dates of the receipts. The possession of the record by the assessee was, therefore, inferred by the Tribunal. Referring to the payment of Rs. 6,000 on 28th June, 1959, the Tribunal observed :