Madras High Court
Smt.C.Padma @ Padma Udayar vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 September, 2021
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
Smt.C.Padma @ Padma Udayar,
No.20, 5th 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. .. Respondent
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 24.10.2008 passed in I.T.A.No.727/Mds/2007 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai for the assessment year
2002-03.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Thiagarajan,
_________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent : Ms.K.G.Usha Rani,
Standing Counsel
******
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
This appeal by the appellant/assessee, filed under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”) is directed against the order
dated 24.10.2008, made in I.T.A.No.727/Mds/2007 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai (for brevity “the
Tribunal”) for the assessment year 2002-03.
2.The appeal was admitted on 30.06.2009, on the following
substantial question of law:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in law in assessing the
appellant based on the statement of accounts of the
appellant's vendor Shri.Manickkam Narayanan alone,
ignoring the books of accounts of the appellant?”
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
3.We have elaborately heard Mr.A.Thiayagrajan, learned Senior
Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee
and Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent/Revenue.
4.The assessee is an individual and for the assessment year 2002-03,
she filed return of income. Since the return was filed belatedly, action was
initiated under Section 147 of the Act. The assessee stated that she has
purchased Satellites Rights for a 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 on
18.01.2002 to a TV Channel for a sum of Rs.38,00,000/-. Verification of
the bank accounts of the vendor of the Satellite Rights was made and after
referring to the various agreements, the Revenue did not agree with the
accounts maintained and produced by the assessee. Based on the statement
of accounts filed by the vendor of the Satellite Rights, the Revenue assessed
the assessee on a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and also altered the break up details
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
in the P & L Account. The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the
Assessing Officer, dated 27.03.2006, preferred appeal before the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai (for brevity “the
CIT(A)”). The appeal was dismissed by order dated 09.01.2007. Aggrieved
by the same, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal re-
appreciated the factual position and came to a conclusion that there is no
error in the order passed by the CIT(A) and confirmed the assessment order.
The assessee is on appeal before us challenging the order passed by the
Tribunal and raising the above substantial question of law.
5.Admittedly, the issue pertains to the transaction between the
assessee and an individual in the matter of purchase and sale of Satellite
Rights for a movie. The factual position has been clearly brought out by the
Assessing Officer, which was re-examined for its correctness by the CIT(A),
who found the same to be a reasoned order. The Tribunal, being the last
authority to examine the factual position, examined the same and found that
there is no error in the decision.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
6.On going through the material papers placed before us, we find that
the entire issue is factual and the two authorities and the Tribunal have
concurrently held against the appellant-assessee. Thus, we find, there is no
question of law, much less substantial question of law arising for
consideration in this appeal.
7.Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
08.09.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
abr
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle I(3), Chennai-600 034.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.
(abr)
T.C.A.No.414 of 2009
08.09.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
