ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI v. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS ZEE TELEFILMS LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 2233/MUM/2010 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 223319914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACZ0243R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2233/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI
Respondent ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS ZEE TELEFILMS LTD), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 23-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-12-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-12-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 19-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL AM AND SHRI D.K.AGARWAL JM ITA NO.2233/MUM/2010 : ASST. YEAR 1998-99 ITA NO.2574/MUM/2008 : ASST. YEAR 2003-2004 ITA NO.2575/MUM/2008 : ASST. YEAR 2004-2005 ITA NO.2236/MUM/2010 : ASST. YEAR 2004-2005 THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 11(1) MUMBAI. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS ZEE TELEFILMS LTD.) CONTINENTAL BUILDING 135 DR.A.B.ROAD WORLI MUMBAI 400 018. PAN : AAACZ0243R. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.2213/MUM/2010 : ASST. YEAR 1998-99 ITA NO.2634/MUM/2008 : ASST. YEAR 2003-2004 ITA NO.2635/MUM/2008 : ASST. YEAR 2004-2005 M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS ZEE TELEFILMS LTD.) CONTINENTAL BUILDING 135 DR.A.B.ROAD WORLI MUMBAI 400 018. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 11(1) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI PAVAN VED (CIT-DR) ASSESSEE BY : DR.K.SHIVARAM DATE OF HEARING : 21.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2011 O R D E R PER BENCH : THIS BATCH OF SEVEN APPEALS COMPRISING OF 3 BY THE ASSESSEE AND 4 BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 2003-20 04 AND 2004-2005. SINCE SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED HEREIN ARE COMMON WE ARE THEREFORE DISPOSING THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE. ITA NOS.2233/MUM/2010 & ORS. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED. 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I S AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` 37 47 495 OUT OF BALANCE WRITTEN OFF INCLUDING ADVA NCES GIVEN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MUSIC ALBUMS ABANDONED. BR IEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS TOWARDS THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 05.02.2001:- (I) ALBUM MOHINI SINGH PROJECT ` 1 37 515 (II) ALBUM PUSHPANJALI PROJECT ` 18 587 (III) AABHA FILM PRODUCTION NO.2 ` 10 00 000 (IV) ALBUM VIKAS BHALLA PROJECT ` 73 133 (V) ATEET CINE COMMUNICATIONS ` 23 00 000 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER SUCH DEBT S AS BAD DEBTS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 36(1)(VII) BECAUSE NO AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS INCOME IN RESPECT THEREOF IN EARLIER YEARS. ON BEIN G CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED ON THIS COUN T THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE WHILE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MUSIC CAS SETTES PRODUCTION AND SALE IT GAVE ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR PRODUCTION OF MUSIC ALBUMS AND SPENT CERTAIN AMOUNTS ON DEVELOPMENT OF MUSIC. THESE PROJ ECTS WERE ABANDONED HALFWAY HENCE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREON WAS WRITTEN OFF. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS BUSINESS LO SS AND NOT BAD DEBT. NOT CONVINCED THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION. THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL WHICH RESTORED THIS ISSUE TO THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION. AGAIN IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O. GIVING EFFECT TO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ADVANC ES WERE GIVEN TOWARDS CERTAIN PROJECTS WHICH COULD NOT BE FINISHED AND HA S TO BE ABANDONED HENCE IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE CONSIDER ED AS LOSS U/S 37. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THE A.O. MADE ADDITION WHICH CAME TO BE UPHELD IN THE FIRST APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT I T WAS A CAPITAL LOSS. ITA NOS.2233/MUM/2010 & ORS. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED. 3 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MUKTA ARTS PVT. LTD. VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 25 TH AUGUST 2008 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.584 OF 2001 CONSIDERED A QUESTION WHE THER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF THE ABANDONED FILM DEVAA WAS TRADING LOSS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE CONCEDED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT NO QUESTION OF L AW WAS INVOLVED AND THE APPEAL ITSELF WAS MISCONCEIVED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE FILM IN QUESTION WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT RELEASED AND HENCE IT WAS STOCK-IN-T RADE AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE SAME BEING CAPITAL ASSET. THE LEARN ED A.R. HAS PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO.166 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ANOTHER JUDGMENT DATED 29 TH AUGUST 2011 OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN CIT VS. INDIAN RARE EARTH LTD. IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1950 OF 2009 HAS BEEN FILED HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSES RELATING TO TW O PROJECTS WHICH WERE ABANDONED DUE TO CERTAIN REASONS WERE LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE LOSS AS THE ASSESSEES NATURE OF BUSINESS OF MINING OF ORE INCORPORATED THE EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES. IN B.NAGI REDDY VS. CIT [(1993) 199 ITR 451 (MAD.)] THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ANY SUM INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PRODUCTION OF TWO FILMS WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ABA NDONED WAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 5. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PRODUCTION O F MUSIC ALBUMS WHICH WERE ABANDONED DUE TO COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AS GOING AHE AD WITH SUCH PROJECTS WOULD HAVE ENTAILED FURTHER COST WITHOUT ANY EQUIVA LENT MARKET. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORE-NOTED JUDGMENTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOU NT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL LOSS BUT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS REVENUE LOSS. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.2233/MUM/2010 & ORS. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED. 4 6. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING TO CONS IDER THE COMMISSION INCOME FROM SPACE SELLING EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CORE BUSINESS INCOME AND THE SAME HAS NOT BE REDUCE D FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT 90% OF THE NET COMMISSION AND NOT 90% OF THE GROSS COMMISSION AS H ELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE REDUCED FROM BUSINESS IN COME FOR COMPUTING THE PROFIT OF BUSINESS U/S 80HHC OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT. 7. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE GROUNDS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING Y EAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 23.03.2011 IN ITA NO.2234/MUM/2010 HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 8. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THESE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR TAKI NG A FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THESE TWO GROUNDS RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE ALREADY CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR TAKING A FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORE-NOTED ORDER. 9. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.2233/MUM/2010 & ORS. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED. 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 10. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED PAYMENT OF ESIC 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IN EXCHEQ UER BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. T HE SPECIAL BENCH IN BHARTI SHIPYARD LTD. VS. DCIT ITA NO.2404/MUM/2009 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 HAS HELD THAT IF EMPLOYEES SHARE OF CONTRIBUTION IS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT THEN NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E PRECEDENT WE ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF THIS DISALLOWANCE UPHELD IN THE FIR ST APPEAL. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO.2(I) IS AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF DE DUCTION U/S 80HHF. THE ONLY ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS FALLING UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND G AINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCE BEING 90% OF SUCH INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE DEDUCT ED OR NOT. FROM THE GROUND IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) REFUSED TO A DJUDICATE ON THE ISSUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIT HAD ALREADY PASSED ORDER U/S 26 3 BY DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ASSESS THE INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED. CIT U/S 263 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CAM E UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.265/MUM/2008. COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 104 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK. V IDE PARA 13 OF THE SAID ITA NOS.2233/MUM/2010 & ORS. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED. 6 ORDER IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND R ESULTANTLY THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BY REDUCING 90% OF THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEE N UPHELD. THE LEARNED A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ORDER WAS ASSAILED BEFORE T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHICH HAS APPROVED THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT BE COMES ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION AND ACCORDINGLY 90% OF THE SAME IS TO BE REDUCED. THIS GROUND IS T HEREFORE ALLOWED. 14. GROUND NO.2(II) IS AGAINST DIRECTING THAT 90% O F ` 3 65 70 160 BEING THE COMPONENTS OF `MISCELLANEOUS INCOME BE DEDUCTED FR OM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AT ALL INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO DISC USSION ABOUT THE COMPONENTS OF SUCH MISCELLANEOUS INCOME. UNLESS THE COMPOSITION O F MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION NO DECISION CAN BE RENDER ED AS TO WHETHER THE SAME SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OR NOT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND R ESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 15. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING REVISED GRO UND IN ITS APPEAL:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT 90% OF INT EREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHF OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 AS AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE I.T.ACT WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT 100% OF THE GROSS INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA NOS.2233/MUM/2010 & ORS. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED. 7 16. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IS ABOUT THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER INTEREST INCOME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS FALLING UND ER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. WE HAVE NOTICED ABOVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER AGAINS T THE ONE PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS FALLING UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THIS GROUND DESERVES TO BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 18. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` 36 400 BEING 20% OF ` 1 82 000 PAID FOR URGENT MEDICAL TREATMENT OF STAFF ON DEMAND BY HOSPITAL U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) ON THE GRO UND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN CASH AND IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER R ULE 6DD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 19. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS FAIRLY ADMITTED BY THE LEA RNED A.R. THAT THE PAYMENT MADE UNDER THE INSTANT CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT COVERED UNDER ANY OF THE CLAUSES OF RULE 6DD. IN SUCH A SITUATION THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWING ANY DEDUCTION ON THIS ISSUE AS SUCH ALLOWABILITY WILL AMOUNT TO VI OLATION OF SECTION 40A(3). THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 20. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOW ANCE OF ` 56 09 117 BEING IRRECOVERABLE BUSINESS ADVANCE WRITTEN OFF AND CLAI MED U/S 37 OF THE ACT. BOTH ITA NOS.2233/MUM/2010 & ORS. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED. 8 THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ABOVE WE HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. IN VIEW OF THE ADMITTED SIMILARI TY OF THE FACTS WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 21. GROUND NO.3(I) IS AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF DE DUCTION U/S 80HHF ON THE INTEREST INCOME WHICH GROUND IS SIMILAR TO GROUND N O.2(I) OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004. IN VIEW OF THE SIMILARITY OF THE FACTS O F THIS GROUND WITH THOSE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 DECIDED ABOVE WE OVERTUR N THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 22. GROUND NO.3(II) IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION TO DED UCTION 90% OF MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AMOUNTING TO ` 4 54 41 094. AGAIN IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF GROUND NO.2(II) OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-20 04. WHILE DECIDING THIS GROUND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004 WE HAVE SET AS IDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR TAK ING A FRESH DECISION. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE IT AFRESH AS PER LAW AF TER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 23. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.2236/MUM/2010 24. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DELETION OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-2005. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IMPOSED PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ITA NOS.2233/MUM/2010 & ORS. M/S.ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED. 9 ADDITION MADE BY HIM TOWARDS IRRECOVERABLE ADVANCE AMOUNTING TO ` 56 09 117. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY BY HOLDING T HAT THERE WAS NO WILLFUL CONCEALMENT DESPITE THE FACT HE HAD SUSTAINED THE A DDITION IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WE HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR THE REBY DELETING THE ADDITION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THERE REMAINS NO FOUNDATION FOR IMPOSING ANY PENALTY ON THIS ISSUE. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDE R ON THIS ISSUE. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 23 RD DECEMBER 2011. DEVDAS* SD/- (R.K.PANDA) AM (NOMINATED) COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-III MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.