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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 535/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 June 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the revision order under section 263 of the Act was previously quashed by the Tribunal, the subsequent assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 has no legal basis and is null and void.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of an assessment order passed subsequent to a revision order that was later quashed by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Hearing: 24.05.2022Pronounced: 08.06.2022

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

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 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 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) 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 dated 18.09.2019, the Tribunal quashed the 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 08th June, 2022 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →