SHRI SHARAD B. PITTI V. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITTA/297/2006

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Sharad B. Pitti against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for a fresh consideration regarding the ownership of personal effects and their valuation for the assessment year 1996-97. The primary legal contention was whether the Tribunal was correct in law to direct the revenue to conduct a fresh investigation on the question of whether these were personal effects. The High Court of Telangana, after hearing the arguments, decided to close the appeal as no live issues were left for consideration following the Tribunal's remand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 753039 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SAPNA REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: NAGA DEEPAK
• Keywords: Assessment Year 1996-97; Consequential Order; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Remand order
• Section: 153(3); 260-A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 297 OF 2006 Appeal Under Section 260 ( A) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 18-12-2001 in lT A No. 38 / HYd/ 2001 for Assessment Year : 1996 -97 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench \"A\" Hyderabad preferred against the order of the Joint Commissioner of lncometax , Special Range .3 , Hyderabad dated 30-03-1999 in PAN / GIR No. s-715/ SR.3 Between Shri Sharad B. Pifti, S/o. Sri Badriyishal Pitti, aged about 45 years, Rl/o.Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The Joint Commissioner Of lncome Tax, (Assessments) Special Range-3, 'Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. SAPNDA REDDY FOR J.V. PRASAD STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Gourt delivered the following: JUDGMENT i , I I : I i I I I I I I I I I THI] IION'BLE TT.IE CIIIEFJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND ,THE HON'BLI] SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.297 oi2006 JUDGI IENT: (>et tlu Ilon'hle iln Cltiel .la.rtiu t'1ju/ Bhryan) Heard lv{r. Naga Deepak, leamed counsel for the appellanr and NG. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondenr. 2- This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellant against the order dated L8.12.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad (rribunal) in I.T.ANo.3B/Hyd/2ooL for the assessment War 199 6-97 . 3. After a detailed hearing on 25.07.2006, this c-ourt framed the following quesrion as subsmntiil quesrion of law for .consideration: Y/trether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal having found that the appellant was the owner of the personal eff'ects and that the creditworthiness of the purchasers could nor be doubted w.as co,,efi in law in directing the revenue ro conducr investigation afresh on the question wherher rhese were pe$o nil effeca ? ( { ..', .. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the above issue, Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer for a fresh consideradon. The order of the CIT(A) on rhis issue was ser aside and matter was remanded back to rhe assessing officer uicle the order dated t8.L2.2001. 5. According to learned counsel for the appellant, though the remand order lras passed by the Tribunal on 18.12 .200t and the limitation period for passing consequential order on remand as conrcmplated under Section 153(3) of the Act is one )rear from the end of the financial year in urfiich the order is passed, assessing officer has not yet Passed the consequential order on remand. 6. without expressing any opinion in this regard, we are of the view that since the Tribunat has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer aftpr se6ing aside the adverse order of CIT(4, no live issue can be said to survive for consideration in ( this appeal. ( i I : ; : ::3:: To, 1. Appeal is acc<>rdingly closed. No costs. As a sequei, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. Sd/.C.V. MALLIKARJ U NA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// <) SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (with records if any) 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-V, (Cent.), Hyderabad 3. The Joint commissioner of lncome Tax, (Assessments) special Range-3, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to Sri Naga Deepak Advocate [OPUC] 5. one cc to Ms. Sapna Reddy for J V Prasad (Sc For rncome Tax) [opUC] 6. Two CD Copies BN I I I i I , HIGH COURT DATED:2210212023 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.297 of 2006 CLOSING THE ITTA iitE S ic I.l' ( ,:+* t.) 1 3 fiPii 2fl23 @ DVI 3-tovz G7t-t "