T.c.a v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle I(3),Chennai-600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP T.C.A.NO.414 OF 2009 Smt.C.Padma @ Padma Udayar,No.20, 5[th] Street, Rutland Gate,Chennai-600 006.(PAN No.AAHPP 0235H) ...Appellant vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle I(3),Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 034. ...RespondentAppeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961againsttheorderdated24.10.2008passedinI.T.A.No.727/Mds/2007 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Bench 'A', Chennai for the assessment year 2002-03preferred against the order of the commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) I, Chennai dated 09.01.2007 made in ITA No.47/06-07filed against the Assessment order of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle I (3), Chennai-34 dated 27.03.2006 inPAN No.AAHPP0235H for the Assessment year 2002-2003. For Respondent :Ms.K.G.Usha Rani,Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal by the appellant/assessee, filed under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”) isdirected against the order dated 24.10.2008, made inI.T.A.No.727/Mds/2007 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Bench 'A', Chennai (for brevity “the Tribunal”) for theassessment year 2002-03. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The appeal was admitted on 30.06.2009, on the followingsubstantial question of law:-“Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in law in assessing the appellant based onthe statement of accounts of the appellant'svendor Shri.Manickkam Narayanan alone, ignoringthe books of accounts of the appellant?” 3.We have elaborately heard Mr.A.Thiayagrajan, learnedSenior Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh kumar, learned counsel for theappellant/assessee and Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue. 4.The assessee is an individual and for the assessment year2002-03, she filed return of income. Since the return was filedbelatedly, action was initiated under Section 147 of the Act.The assessee stated that she has purchased Satellites Rights fora film from a person in Chennai for a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-under an agreement dated 04.01.2002 and sold the same on18.01.2002 to a TV Channel for a sum of Rs.38,00,000/-.Verification of the bank accounts of the vendor of the SatelliteRights was made and after referring to the various agreements,the Revenue did not agree with the accounts maintained andproduced by the assessee. Based on the statement of accountsfiled by the vendor of the Satellite Rights, the Revenueassessed the assessee on a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and alsoaltered the break up details in the P & L Account. Theassessee, being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer,dated 27.03.2006, preferred appeal before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai (for brevity “the CIT(A)”). Theappeal was dismissed by order dated 09.01.2007. Aggrieved bythe same, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. TheTribunal re-appreciated the factual position and came to aconclusion that there is no error in the order passed by the CIT(A) and confirmed the assessment order. The assessee is onappeal before us challenging the order passed by the Tribunaland raising the above substantial question of law. 5.Admittedly, the issue pertains to the transaction betweenthe assessee and an individual in the matter of purchase andsale of Satellite Rights for a movie. The factual position hasbeen clearly brought out by the Assessing Officer, which was re-examined for its correctness by the CIT(A), who found the sameto be a reasoned order. The Tribunal, being the last authorityto examine the factual position, examined the same and foundthat there is no error in the decision. 5.Admittedly, the issue pertains to the transaction betweenthe assessee and an individual in the matter of purchase andsale of Satellite Rights for a movie. The factual position hasbeen clearly brought out by the Assessing Officer, which was re-examined for its correctness by the CIT(A), who found the sameto be a reasoned order. The Tribunal, being the last authorityto examine the factual position, examined the same and foundthat there is no error in the decision. 6.On going through the material papers placed before us, wefind that the entire issue is factual and the two authorities https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the Tribunal have concurrently held against the appellant-assessee. Thus, we find, there is no question of law, much lesssubstantial question of law arising for consideration in thisappeal. 7.Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarabrTo1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I(3), Chennai-600 034.2.The Assistant Registrar, The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai.3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-I, Chennai-34.+1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.45652+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.45633T.C.A.No.414 of 2009RSI(CO)RVM(07/10/2021)