Sameer Fateh Shaikh Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai sets aside disallowance of ₹1.97 Cr dubbing expenses – Remands to CIT(A) as authorities ignored invoices, bank proofs & confirmations; mere appearance of husband of vendor cannot make the entire expenditure “bogus”
Assessee is an individual engaged in the post-production media business, earning dubbing income. To execute these assignments, he regularly sub-contracts work to artists, coordinators, script writers & freelancers. For AY 2015-16, he debited ₹1,97,57,904 towards contract dubbing/artist coordination charges. During scrutiny, AO issued summons u/s 131 to major parties. All except one, Mrs. Reena Panchal (Dhruv Communications), appeared. Despite the fact that the remaining creditors attended & confirmed services, AO held that no real work was done, treated the entire ₹1.97 Cr as bogus, and added it to WIP.
Before CIT(A), Assessee produced confirmations, invoices with episode-wise details, bank statements showing payments, audited financials of service providers, ITRs in some cases & even demonstrated that only ₹71.32 lakh was outstanding as on 31.03.2015 & the balance was paid in the next year. Assessee also pointed out that service tax had been charged & paid by vendors. Most importantly, for the major party, the husband of Mrs. Reena Panchal attended the summons & confirmed the services. AO admitted this but simply stated that “veracity remains unverified” because the wife did not personally appear.
