DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (4), CHENNAI V. SHRI ALLAHRAKKA RAHMAN, CHENNAI

ITA 535/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9298 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी. दुगाŊ राव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज कु मार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.535/Chny/2020 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Investigation Wing, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Shri Allahrakka Rahaman, No. 5, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar, 4 th Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [PAN: ADMPR0060J] (अपीलाथŎ /Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 24.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, dated 31.12.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 4 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, the Department has filed a petition for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since I.T.A. No. 535/Chny/20 2 the Revenue was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of four days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was completed in this case on 30.03.2014. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Act, but considering the fact that the contributions were assessed in the hands of M/s. A.R. Rahman Foundation, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT, by exercising power under section 263 of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment by his order dated 28.03.2018. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 31.12.2018. Meanwhile, against the order under section 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order in I.T.A. No. 1745/Chny/2018 dated 18.09.2019, the Tribunal quashed the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act. Against the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) I.T.A. No. 535/Chny/20 3 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, against which, the Revenue preferred present appeal. 3. The ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has omitted to consider the fact that the assessee as a composer of a specific tune to Lebara has received the remuneration not only for the services rendered but also for parting with the copy rights and patents, commercials, performances and enhancement of such recordings and compositions, by him for Lebara Mobiles in his individual capacity and pleaded for setting aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and restored that of the Assessing Officer. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that once the order passed under section 263 of the Act has been quashed by the Tribunal, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act has no legs to stand. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, against the revision order under section 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal vide order in I.T.A. No. 1745/Chny/2018 dated 18.09.2019, the Tribunal quashed the I.T.A. No. 535/Chny/20 4 revision order passed under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, the subsequent assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 31.12.2018 has no legs to stand and subsequent proceedings in lieu of order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act stands null and void. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 08 th June, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, the 08.06.2022 Vm/- आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant, 2.ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुᲦ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुᲦ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR & 6. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.