The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 V. Sri Harinath Chigullapally

ITTA/42/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Hyderabad against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which pertained to the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal had restored the matter to the assessing officer, which the appellant contested, arguing that the Tribunal had ignored relevant materials and considered irrelevant ones. The High Court examined the substantial questions of law raised, including the appropriateness of the Tribunal's decision to restore the matter to the assessing officer and the interpretation of legislative intent under the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 720164 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Siddharth Desai (1983) 139 ITR 1628 (Guj), Sarina BIBI Mohammed vs. (1993) 204 ITR 631 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2008-09; Final Fact Finding Authority; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal
• Section: 2(11); 260-4

Judgement Text

"[ 3311 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:42 OF 2022 (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B ', Hyderabad in ITA No.907lHydl2016, for assessment Year 2008-09 daled 23-07- 2021, preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, Appeal No. 1064lClT(A)-712014-15, dated25-02-2}16, preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad pAN/clR No.AAXPCB 1 74A, dated 2O-O1 -201 5.) Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome{ax-4, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND Sri Harinath Chigullapally, B-13, New Fruit lvlarket Complex, Kothapet, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad - 500 036. PAN. AAXPCS'174A ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMEN]' THT' I ION'BI-E TT{I., CHIEII U At- I]HUY AND ,fI]E HON'BI-IJ SRI IUSTICE N.TUKARAMII L I .'l'.A.l9a-42 of2022 t'11,.r\"', ',,, ! ',, t ,,.t,'Ithtt.tfi) Ilcartl NIr. J. '.1)r:rsatl, l,. at'nccl Scnrt-,t St.tndtrrs (-c)ur1scl, Incot-t-tc 2 l ax [)cpartrrcrrt for thc appellant 'l his apl,eal hrrs becn l)referrcd bv thc rcvcnuc as thc appcl)ant Lrnclcr Sccttor'r 2(r0A of thc Income 'I'ax Act, 1961 (brlcflr' 'the r cr' Irere rnrftcr) aq rinst rl-rc ordcr cle.tcd 23.07 .2021 passcd b1' thc Incornc Ias . ppellatt: I rit>r.rn'rl, Ilvtict\"b'c] llench '13', Ilvclcrabacl Qrieflv 'thc lribLrnal'lrcrcir.raftet) rrr I.'l ' . No.907/IIyd/2016 fttr thc assessrncnr lcar 20()8 2(X)9 ) I'he appr:al has been lrlcd proposing the following gucstiofls as substantial cluc'rdons of larv 1. 'hetho on thc ftcts arrt] irr thc ci.rcumstances of the casc, is not ttu cleciston of tht' 'l'ribun:r I in ignoring thc rclcvant and gcrmanc ur:ttcrials an, I findings of rhe assessing offlccr and in taking intn thc facts and irr thc citcumstanccs o[ thc casc' thc 'Iribunal was right tn not cousttlcring tllc fact rhat thc as'csl;ct:'s casc falls rvithin one of tlre conclitions' nanlclv' Whethcr an agl:iculturisr rvoultl purchasc tht larrct [t'r agriculrural purPoscs at thc price at rvhich thc !antl \"t';rs sokl ancl whcthcr the owtler rvould have ever s(-rld thc land vtltrirrg tt as t propert) yielcling agncrilnrral prodncc on thc basis ..r[ its )'itrlJ followrng the law laid dorvn by thc Ciuiatti f iigl'r ('ourt in the caseofC[Tv.SiddharthJDesai(1983)139].1I1628(Guj) whlch tcst was also consitlcred by tht: Suprcrnc ( 'ourt in thc case tif Sarifa BIBI Mohammed rcpc'ttt'd in (1993) 204 I'lli 631 (sc). 4. Impugnccl ordcr of the 'I'ribunal dated 2-3 07 2021 is a common order Passed ir-r ITA'Nos'905' 906' 907' 908' and 909/Hydl201'6 trled by thc revenue against the respondents lly a separatc order passed on 15.06'2[23,this Court has dismissed 1\"I I\"A'No 40 o12022 trled by the revenuc asainst the saitl c()mffIon ordcr dated 23.07.2021 passed by the 'fribunal in rcsPect of ' r.'r'.A.No.909 / Hyd I 2016 for the block pcnod 2008-2009 The questlons raiscd in both the appcals being similar' thc ptcscnt appcal I t ., is:rlso rL:nri;st,Ion rhr' 'cr 5:un('lcasons l.'l'.'I'.u .No..10 r>f 2()22 ivas r]rsnrrs:ccl -r cc,,rtlrn 1ir, rhrs rrlrPcrLl rs rlisrnisscd. No cosrs ., s a sc c rrcl, r'nisccllan c( )us petitions, pending if anv, srand closccl //TRUE COPY// Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR /', -:lp SECTION OFFICER To, DL q 1. 2 3 4 5 The lncome Tax lrppellate Tribunal' Hyderabad'Bench ' B \" Hyderabad- The Commissiont'r of lncomelax (Appeals)-7'.Hyderabad' +';: i#;;;x ofticer' ward-e(4) Hvderabad - -\"\" one cc to lr,4r J v pnnsno\"rii'ioir TNCOVT TAX) toPUCl . Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATEO:16/06/2023 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.42 of 2022 DISMISSING THE APPEAL ,9 13 Jtlt 2m (.,.- ).- ,.i ,,')' a c+ . r3 r.1 .r {: "