M/S SPEED RECORDS, JALANDHAR V. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

ITA 450/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0939 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHA RANI SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN LD
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 153A; 143(2); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.449 & 450(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. SPEED RECORDS, EK-216, PHAGWARA GATE, JALANDHAR [PAN:ABAFS 9088H] VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN (LD. AD V.) RESPONDENT BY: SMT. ABHA RANI SI NGH (LD. CIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING: 23.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.09.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 31/05/2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR, U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT') WHEREBY THE LD. CIT( A) PARTLY SUSTAINED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT , RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR:2007-08 AND 2008-09. 2. AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR ADJUDI CATION BY WAY OF THIS COMPOSITE ORDER. ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 2 3. LET US TO FIRST DECIDE THE APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.449(ASR) /2017 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR:2007-08. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2007 BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.86,850/-. SUBSEQUENTLY A SEARCH OPERA TION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE ASSESSEES PREM ISES ON 05.12.2012 AND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME ON DATED 17.06.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.86,853/, THEREAFTER, STATUTORY NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUE D WHICH WERE ALSO REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ULTIMATELY MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO THOUGH PARTLY D ELETED THE ADDITIONS, HOWEVER, SUSTAINED SOME OF THE ADDITIONS AGAI NST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT WHEN NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING F OR THIS YEAR ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, SINCE THE RETURN O RIGINALLY FILED HAD ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED U/S. 143(2) PRIOR TO SEAR CH, NO RE- ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE TO MAKE SEVERAL ADDITIONS, FOR WANT OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND IN SEARCH. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.2,02,809/-, MADE BY DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE AGGREGATE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD AUDIO & VIDEO MA KING CHARGE + PUBLICITY EXPENSES SANS A FINDING THAT SA ID EXPENSES WERE EITHER NOT ACTUALLY INCURRED OR NOT INCURRED F OR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 2.1 THAT WHEN A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,06,000/- HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE EARLIER UNDER REGULAR ASSESSMENT, NO FRESH DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE AND SUSTAINED BEYOND THE SAID FIGURE, MORE SO WHEN NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN SEARCH TO JUSTIFY A HIGHER DISALLOWANCE. ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 3 3 THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNREASONABLE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO SH SARDOOL SIKANDER, PURSUANT TO AN AG REEMENT, REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE SAME H AD BEEN CANCELLED. 3.1 THAT WHEN THE ABOVE AMOUNT, IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT, WAS NOT FOUND TAXABLE BY THE LATTERS AO , EVEN AFTER REOPENING HIS CASE U/S. 148, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN STILL TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW, TO CONFIRM THIS ADDIT ION. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS UNREASONABLE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,000/- MADE BY DISALLOWANCE OF E XPENSES, ON WHOLLY ERRONEOUS GROUNDS. 5. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, TO THE EXTENT DISPUTED HEREIN, ARE AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE C ASE . 5. GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE THIS GROUND SPECIFICALLY, THEREFORE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATI ON. 6. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE SUSTAINING OF THE AD HOC ADDITION OF RS.2,02,809/- BASED ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE AGGREGATE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD AUDIO & VIDEO MAKING CHARGE + PUBLICITY EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE T HIS GROUND SPECIFICALLY, HENCE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICA TION. 7. GROUND NO. 2.1 & 4 ARE COMMON IN NATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,000/- ON T HE REASON THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASST. YEAR: 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO T HE ADDITIONS OF RS.56,000/- ON UN-VOUCHED EXPENSES AND RS.50,000/- ON EXPENSES OF PERSONAL IN NATURE, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL, HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN U/S 153A THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN NOT REFLECTED THESE ADDITI ONS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A), ON APPEAL AFFI RMED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH VOLUNTA RILY ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 4 AGREED TO SAID ADDITION QUA EXPENSES OF PERSONAL IN NAT URE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISCL OSED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT S AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR TO THE EFFECT TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PAID THE RELEVANT TAXES ON THE AMOUN T UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, DOUBLE ADDITION CAN NOT BE MADE AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO DOUBLE TAXATI ON. WE REALIZED THAT THE SAID ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 04.12.2009 U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT DISCLOSE THE SAID ADDITION IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PAID T HE TAXES ON THE SAID ADDITION, WHICH IS NOT REFUTED BY THE REV ENUE DEPARTMENT, HENCE THE INSTANT ADDITION OF RS.1,06,000/ - IS NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE IF ALLOWED, THEN THE SAME WOULD AMOU NT TO DOUBLE TAXATION HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO DELETE THE SAME, CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME STANDS DELETED. 8. GROUND NO.3 & 3.1 ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/-, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF SH. DINESH AULUCK, WHO IS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE F IRM, SOME LOOSE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AS PAGES-132 TO 134 OF ANNEXURE-A-1, WHICH IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TH E ASSESEE FIRM AND AN ARTIST SH. SARDUL SIKANDER WHEREIN THE SINGER HAS BEEN SIGNED/ENGAGED BY THE FIRM FOR PURCHASE OF RIGHTS TO HIS ALBUM AND AS PER TERMS OF AGREEMENT, T HE TOTAL ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 5 CONSIDERATION RS.36,00,000/- WAS FIXED AS PER BELOW MENT IONED SCHEDULE. ON 07.11.2006 2,00,000/- BY CHEUQE AFTER 10 DAYS, 5,00,000/- IN CASH. REMAINING AMOUNT- TO BE PAID IN INSTALLMENTS ON RECEIPT OF CASSETTES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEREIN IT WAS FOUND THAT ONLY TWO PAYMENTS IN CHEQUES ONE OF RS.2,00,000/- ON 07.11.2006 AND SECOND OF RS.2,00,000/- IN 2007 HAVE BEEN ENTERED AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSE SSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED. THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 17.03.2015 CLAIMED THAT ARTIST SH. SARDUL SIKANDER HAD TO PROVID E TWO ALBUMS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY/SISTER CONCERN AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT, HOWEVER, THE ARTIST COULD NOT PROVIDE HIS SOLO MUSIC ALBUM TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,00,000/- WAS PAID AGAINST DUET ALBUM GIVEN TO THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GET IMPRESS B Y THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE AGREEME NT CLEARLY MENTION THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- IN CASH WAS TO BE PAID TO THE ARTIST WITHIN 10 DAYS OF SIGNING THE AG REEMENT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY PROOF REGARDING CANCELLA TION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ARTIST. THER E IS NO PROOF REGARDING ANY CLAIM OF DAMAGES MADE BY THE EITH ER PARTY FOR VIOLATION OF THE AGREEMENT. THERE IS ALSO NO PROO F OF ANY COMMUNICATION BY THE ARTIST TO THE FIRM THAT THE ALBU M WAS NOT RECORDED. IT IS SEEN IN THE AGREEMENT THAT ONLY AN AMO UNT OF RS.2,00,000/- IS STATED TO BE PAID BY CHEQUE. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 6 THE FIRM INTENDED TO PAY THE REMAINING AMOUNT OUTSID E THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THAT IS WHY PAYMENT IN CASH IS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. THE PROOF THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT CANCELLED IS THE FACT, AS THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,00,000/- BY CHEQUE I S SHOWN TO BE MADE TO THE ARTIST IN THE YEAR 2007. 10. ON CHALLENGE, THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS UNDER: GROUNDS NO.6 AND 7 RELATES TO THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 5,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF RIGHT OF ALBUMS OF ARTIST SHRI SARDUL SIKANDER. DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI DINESH AULUCK THE P ARTNER OF THE FIRM, LOOSE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND THE SEIZED AS PAGE S 132 TO 134 OF ANNEXURE A-L. THIS IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN M/S S PEED RECORDS WHERE IN THE ARTIST SHRI SARDUL SIKANDER HA S BEEN SIGNED BY THE FIRM FROM PURCHASE OF RIGHTS TO HIS ALBUMS. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION TO BE PAID TO SHRI SARDUAL SIKNDER IS RS.36,00,000/-., THE SCHEDULE OF WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS; 07.11.2006 RS.2,00,000/- AFTER TEN DAYS, FIVE LAKHS IN CASH. REMAINING AMOUNT TO BE PAID IN INSTALLMENTS ON RECE IPT OF CASSETTES. 11. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 147 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON DATED 26.03.2015 AGAINST THE SINGER WHO MADE THE AGR EEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAID PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN DROPPED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.03.2016. OFFICE NOTE IS ALSO APPENDED IN THE SAID OR DER PASSED U/S 147 R.W.S.148 OF THE ACT WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE INSTANT ISSUE. OFFICE NOTE ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 7 THIS CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AFTER ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF I.T ACT, 1961 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 36, 00,000/- FROM M/$ SPEED RECORDS IN THE PERIOD NOV.2006 TO NO V.2007 FOR RECORDING OF ALBUMS AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDIT IONS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS.2 ,00,000/- IN HIS GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQU E FROM M/S SPEED RECORDS, JALANDHAR AND TDS AMOUNTING TO RS.20 ,600/- DEDUCTED ON THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,00,000/- BY THE SPE ED RECORDS, JALANDHAR HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN HIS RETURN O F INCOME.- IT HAS ALSO BEEN VERIFIED THAT NO OTHER INCOME OF R S.34,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y.2007-08 FROM M/S SPEED RECORDS, JALANDHAR. IN THIS REGARD, CONFIRMAT ION FROM M/S SPEED RECORDS ALONG THE CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SPEED REC ORDS HAVE- BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HA S BEEN DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN FILED. 11.1 IT IS A FACT THAT IN RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED IN THE OFFICE NOTE THAT THE CASE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.36,00,000/- FROM M/ S. SPEED RECORDS (ASSESSEE HEREIN) DURING THE PERIOD OF NOVE MBER, 2006 TO NOVEMBER, 2007 FOR RECORDING OF ALBUM AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN INCOME OF RS. 2,00,000/- IN HIS GROSS RECEIPTS WHICH WAS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE FROM M/S. SPEED RECORDS, JALAN DHAR AND TDS AMOUNTING TO RS.20,600/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN H IS ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 8 RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT IT HAS BEEN VERIFIED THAT NO OTHER INCOME OF RS.3 4,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y. 2007-08 FROM M/S. SPEED RECORDS, JALANDHAR. IN THIS REGARD, CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. SPEED RECORDS, JALANDHAR ALONG WITH CONFIRMED COPY OF A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS M/S SPEED RECORDS HAS BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S AND PLACED ON RECORD. ON THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 1 47 R.W.SEC.148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN FILED. 11.2 WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS RELEVANT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE AGREEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE AND SUSTAINED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AS P ER AGREEMENT, THE SINGER WAS SUPPOSED TO RECORD DUET CASSETT ES WITH CO-SINGER AMAR NURI AND THE SECOND ONE SOLO CASSETTE BY HIMSELF AND THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SINGER COULD NOT P ROVIDE HIS SOLO MUSIC TO THE ASSESSEES COMPANY THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT PAY THE REMAINING AMOUNT TO THE SAID SINGER AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS PAID REMAINING AMOUNT TO THE SINGER IN PURSU ANCE TO THE AGREEMENT. IT IS A FACT THAT THE CASE OF THE SI NGER WAS RE- OPENED U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE (SINGER) HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.36,00,000/- FROM M/S SPEED RECORDS (ASSESSEE HEREIN) DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER, 2006 TO NOVEMBER, 2007 FOR ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 9 RECORDING OF ALBUM AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENT IONED IN THE AGREEMENT. IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DULY VERIFIED THAT THE SAID SINGER HAS SHO WN INCOME OF RS.2,00,000/- IN HIS GROSS RECEIPTS, RECEIVED THR OUGH CHEQUE FROM M/S. SPEED RECORDS, JALANDHAR AND TDS AMOUN TING TO RS.20,600/- WAS DEDUCTED ON THE SAID PAYMENT BY THE SPEED RECORDS, JALANDHAR, AS CLAIMED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER VERIFIED THAT NO OTHER INCOME O F RS.34,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE (SINGER) DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEAR: 2007-08 FROM M/S. SPEED RECORDS, JALAND HAR. THE SAID ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SOUGHT CONFIRMATION FROM M/S SPEED RECORDS ALONG WITH CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SPEED RECORDS DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, AFTER ANA LYZING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SAID ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BE EN DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 1 47 R.W.SEC.148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN FILED. 11.3 WE REALIZE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE INSTA NT CASE THOUGH HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE CONCLUSION DR AWN BY THE SAID ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE SINGER U/S 147 OF THE ACT, HOWEV ER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED A CRYPTIC ONE LINE ORDE R DROPPING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 WITHOUT IN ANY MANNER CONFIRMING THAT SR. SARDUL SIKANDER (SINGER) WAS NEVE R PAID ANY MONEY BY HIM. HOWEVER, AS IT REFLECTS FROM THE NOTE OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DROPPIN G THE PROCEEDINGS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ABOUT RECEIVING OF THE PART ITA NOS.449 & 450/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2007-08 & 2008-09) SPEED RECORDS VS. DCIT 10 PAYMENT OF RS.2,00,000/- ONLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, WHILE CONSIDER ING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION WAS NEVER MATERIALIZED FULL Y AND CONSIDERATION AMOUNT WAS NOT PAID IN FULL, DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE SAID SINGER DID NOT RECORD THE SOLO MUSIC ALBUM WHICH RESULTED INTO VERBAL CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION, HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED BY THE AUTHORI TY BELOW IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED, THEREFORE WE DO NOT HAVE AN Y HESITATION TO DELETE THE SAME. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.450/ASR/2017 FOR A.Y.2008-09 AS PER DECISION OF ITA NO.449/ASR/2017, AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ISSUES INVOLVED ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.450/ASR/2017 ALSO STANDS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.09.2019. SD/- SD/- ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03.09.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER