Sri Saikumar Tatipalli V. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Mancherial

ITTA/297/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Sri Saikumar Tatipalli against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad. The dispute originated from an agreement of sale executed on 06.11.2015 for agricultural land in Mancherial District, Telangana. The appellant contested the income tax assessments for the year 2016-17, arguing that the authorities did not consider the presumption under Section 292-C of the Income Tax Act regarding the genuineness of the sale agreement and the transactions therein. However, both the Commissioner and the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798043 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K MAMATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Agreement of sale; Agricultural land sale; Assessment Year 2016-17; Income Tax
• Section: 260; 292-C

Judgement Text

"[ 33E6 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No1 297 ot2022 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B', Hyderabad in ITA No.72lHyd12020, for assessment Year 2016-17 dated 14-07- 2022, Veferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad, Appeal No.10186/2018-19/C|T(A)-2, dated 28-11-2019, preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial. PAN/GIR No.APQPT3005H, dated: 28-1 2-2018. Between: Sri Saikumar Tatipalli, H.No.C-46lA, Narsingapur (V), Jaipur (M), Mancherial Dist., Telangana State - 504216- ...Appellant AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward -1, lvlancherial, Bellampally Road, Mancherial, Talangana State-S0421 6. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.V. RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. MAMATHA The Court made the following: ORDER ! THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A.No.297 of 2O22 ORDER..- er Hon'ble Si Justlce P.SAM KOSHY) The instant appeal has ber:n liled assailing the order dated I4.O7.2022, passed by rhe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Flyderabad Bench ,I3,, Hyderabad, (for short 'the Tribunal') in I.'t.A.No.72/Hyd/2O2O, for the assessment year 20 1 6-20 17 . 2. i{earcl Sri A. 2. Raghu Rara, learned counsel for the atppcllalrt 3. Vide the said impugnccl order, the Income Tax Appellatc Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellar.,t hcrein assailing thr: order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)_2 dated 28.71.2019. - The u,hole isstre revolves around an agrecment of saLc excr:utet.l r;n 06.11.20 15. between onc Sri Singam 2 Madhuraiah and the father of the appellant Sri Tatimella Srinivas. The agreement of saLe was in respect of an agricultural land situated in Survey Nos. 103/ 1 and lO3 12, Narsingpur Village, Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District, T.S. As per the agreement, an advance of Rs. 1,00,0O0/- was received by the father of the appellant and balance of the amount was to be received at the time of registration of the sale deed. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 and the Tribunal have not taken into consideration the presumption that has to be drawn under Section 292-C of the Act, so far as the genuineness of the agreement and the transactions that took place between the father of the appellant and the purchaser of the property in terms of the said agreement 6. However, a perusal of the records would revea-l that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 at the hrst instance, and a,lso the Tribunal, have specifically dealt :7- I 3 with the said issue and the Tribunal whiie taking into consideration the said issue at paragraph No.1l held as under: \"For aLl these reasons, we are of the consid.ered. opinion that the alleged agreement of sale d.ated_ 06/ 1 I / 2015 is not at aLl helpfut in prouing the case of the assessee and there is no euidence to shotu that the assessee receiu,zd the entire sale consideration of Rs. 43 lakhs duing th.e preuious gear releuant to the assessme.nt year 2016-17. Euen if we belieue this, still the doubt entertained. by tlrc Ld. CIT(A) that inasmuch as the assessee bought property utorth Rs. 62,ZB,Z60/- on 3O/06/20j5 tuherein the credit lssue o/ Rs. 40 lakhs was to be considered, goes untmpeachecl. We, tLrerefore, d.o not find ang reasons to interfere with the fi..ndings and. the conclusions reached bg the authoities belotu. There is no merit in the grou,nd s of appeal and the same ls dtsmissed.\" The aforesaid finding given by the Tribunal would clearly give an indication that the Tribrrnal had applied its mind and had taken into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellalt and thereafter, reached to a conclusion. Thus, it becomes a finding of fact by the Tribunal itself. 7, Under the circumstances, we are of the considered I ) opinion that there is no question of law made out, much 4 To, kam less a substantial question of law for admitting the present appeal. The present appeal, therefore fails and is accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,/ SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B', Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad. 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial. 4. One CC to SRI A.V. RAGHU RAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI K. MAMATHA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies l ,) HIGH COURT DATED:3010812023 ORDER lTTA.No.297 of 2022 THE I.T.T.A IS REJECTED 11 tI11s8 to >D "