IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2007 M/S. VIDEO MASTER ... Appellant VERSUS JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX ... Respondent O R D E R This appeal concerns M/s. Video Master, partnership firm, which is assessee and appellant before us. controversy relates to assessment for block period 01.01.1985 to 24.08.1995. On two dates, viz., 24.08.1995 and 25.08.1995, while search operation under Section 132 of Income Tax Act was carried out at various premises of Time Video Group, one Shri Dhirajlal N. Shah made statement on 25.08.1995 in answer to Question No. 9. He said to have disclosed that qua two of movies with which his firm was concerned, partnership firm had, in fact, undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 2 crores insofar as those films were concerned. This being case, qua these two films, addition of Rs.1,83,50,000/- was made by Order-in-Original dated 25.09.1996. In appeal preferred by assessee, Income Tax Tribunal by its order dated 25.11.1997 remanded case for fresh hearing. Tribunal specifically stated that Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Aroraconfession made by assessee partner on 25.08.1995 might Date: 2015.09.22 17:37:59 IST Reason: not have been retracted in accordance with law, and was, C.A. No. 94/2007 1 therefore, still relevant, but could not be treated as conclusive. matter was therefore, sent back to Assessing Officer to give fresh finding taking into account both, statement made as well as other corroborative evidence. In second round, Assessment Order dated 29.03.2000 gave detailed reasons for arriving at conclusion that figures stated in Statement recorded were corroborated, in particular, by various loose sheets found at premises of assessee as well as vouchers, some of which related to two films in question. In appeal filed to Tribunal, Tribunal framed three issues, two of which were unnecessary for reason that statement recorded on 25.08.1995 was said to be relevant but not conclusive. Therefore, whether statement was made under duress and whether it was retracted lawfully would have no relevance at this stage. However, Tribunal went into these issues as well and ultimately, found that statement could be used as evidence. Further, it examined other corroborative evidence referred to in Assessment Order and arrived at finding that added income would be income which can be added under Section 158 BC for block assessment period in question. In appeal filed under Section 260A to Bombay High Court, High Court found, after narrating facts, that no substantial question of law arises. C.A. No. 94/2007 2 We are of view, in accordance with view of High Court, that no substantial question of law arises. Further, though it was vehemently argued by Shri Devansh A. Mohta, learned counsel appearing for assessee, that this was case both of perversity and of there being no evidence at all. We find that not only are findings of fact recorded in some detail but that it is not possible to say that this is case of no evidence at all inasmuch as evidence in form of statement made by assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record. In view thereof, we find no substance in present appeal which is accordingly, dismissed. ........................, J. [ A.K. SIKRI ] ........................, J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi; September 16, 2015. C.A. No. 94/2007 3 ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.14 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 94/2007 M/S. VIDEO MASTER Appellant(s) VERSUS JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX Respondent(s) Date : 16/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Devansh A. Mohta, Adv. Mr. Vasudev J., Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Shikha Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sujata Kurdukar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pravesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. T. M. Singh, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv. UPON hearing counsel Court made following O R D E R appeal is dismissed in terms of signed order. (Nidhi Ahuja) (Renu Diwan) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER [Signed order is placed on file.] C.A. No. 94/2007 4 M/S. VIDEO MASTER v. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX