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

ITTA/48/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Hyderabad against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, which had previously decided on similar issues in ITA Nos. 905, 906, 907, 908, and 909/Hyd/2016. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2008-09 and challenged the Tribunal's decision on grounds that the relevant materials and findings were ignored and that there was a failure to exercise jurisdiction correctly. The High Court dismissed the appeal, referencing a similar case (ITA No. 40 of 2022) where the same issues were addressed and decided.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686027 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Siddharth J Desai (1983) 139 ITR 628 (Guj), Sarifa Bibi Mohammed reported in (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; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Jurisdiction; Legislative intent
• Section: 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: 48OF 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.905/Hyd/2016, for assessment Year 2008-09 dated 23-o7 - 2021 , preterred against the order of the commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-7 Hyderabad, ITA No. 1068/ClT(A)-7l2014]15, daled 25-02-2016, preferred against theOrderofthelncomeTaxOfficer,Ward-9(4),HyderabadPAN/GIR No.ACJPC0241J, dated20-06-2015.) Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome-tax-4, Hyderabad \"'APPELLANT AND Sri. Lokesh Chigullapally' B-1 3. New Fru it. Market-Crcm plex, Kothapet' CiOOiannara.,-nyO'erabaO - 500 036. PAN. ACJPC 0241 B ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAx) Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared The Court made the following: r ]: E, l-{ QN' tl.L .E I r ! l: qrlIIl_FJusT I c r i U_IJA L. B r l U-yAN A LD T lc r j r j o N' rl r _ r j_ s RlJ usl' r c E N. LU K4 R, MJ I I.-I.l'.A.No..l 8 t>f 2022 t.lDGh{Er.l'I i. cr rtt,' ttrt , t, t ix '!,.. l'r/'r/ Il/rr),lt) f lcrLrr J',fr.J. '.Pr':rsacl, lcarncd Ser-rior Standirre (.r;ulscl, Income l'ru D:1-nrtr l( ni f()r rhc altpcllant 2 'i lri; z npc:rl hrrs bercn prcfcrrcd by thc rrs the tppcllant rcven Lr. rrndcr icctr( n 2(r0, ctf rltc lncor-nc 'l'ax r cr . 1961 (tr e flv ,thc Act, hcrcina ftc -) ig:ailsr rhc or Jt,r ilarccl 23.07.201 I Passt,cl by thc lncome 'l'ax Appcih : I'ribunri, ilrcicrabad Rench 'B', Hydcr.rbad (bncfly .the 'l ribunrr[' lr,- :,naftcr) in | 'l' . No.905/Hyd/20 L6 [rrr r]re assessment rcar 20()B 20 rlt. 3. 'I hc a1: rr:a[ has bcen lilctl pr-oposing rhrr firllr,v,ing questions as substan jaj t1r ::,tions of Jarr.: 1. V'hcr tr: r n thc lacts rtnrl rn rhc circurrstanccs of r rc case, ts n()t the clct:t rt,- r of tlx: 'I ribrrnal in ignoting the Ielevarrt anil gerrnane matenalri r r,,l finclings ol- thc asscssing officr:t and ; r tlLking into consirlcr.rti ,r' irrclcr.ant nrarcrills bacl irr larv ar d pcrc .se rnd also a fatlurc t, t: e ci;c'its jrLrisdicrion as fhc Flnal far:t 6ndir.:,3 authoriw ? 2. Whctlrcr r. n rhc facrs ,rnri in t]re circumstenc( s c,tr lhc casc. t]rc 'I'ribLrnal ,: Ls rit,irr ur rt storing rhc mattcl, bzrck tr tl.c file of I I t I - 1 asscssing ofErcer thougl'r thc nssessinq officel categotically bouglrt on record that t[rr: asscsscc s ttrtenuon ts cleatlv bcyond the pun'ictt' of the lcgrslative lntcnt and cannot be classificd as falling within thc cxempriorts ullLlct i(cll{'rt IiI{) of the ' ct 7 3. Whether ou tht tacts antl in thc circumstances of thc casc' the Tribunal was righ t in not considenng the fact that the assessec's case falls u'ithin onc of the conditions' namely' Sflhether an agnculturist \"vould purchase the land for agriculrural purPoses at the price at which *re land was sold and whethcr thc owner would have ever sold the laod valuilg it as a property fielding agricultural ptoduce on the basis of its vield fotlowing thc law laid down b-v the Gularat High Oourt in the case of CIT v. Siddharth J Desai (1983) 139 Il'R 628 (Gui ) which test rvas irlso considered by the Supreme Court ir-r the caseofsarifaBlBlMohammedreportedifl0gg3)204ITR 631(Sq. 4. Inrpugned order of the Tribunal dated 23'07 '2021 is a common order passed in ITANos905, 906, 907' 908' ar,d 909/H'ld/201'6 hlcd by the revenuc against the respondcnts By a separate order this Court has dismissed I'T'1\"A No'40 of 2022 passed on 1'5.06.2023, filed by the revenue against the said common order I [ /d^r.a n.01.2021 passcd by the Tribunal respect of 1n I.T. A.No.909 / HY d / 20 I 6 flor the block Period 2008-2009 f'hc I qu\".riorrs raised in both thc appeals being similar' the present appcal is l]so r-lisrnlst 'rl c'n thtl ef : s'tltlc tcasotrs I clismis sctl 3 1'. l'.,r.. -10 o {' 2022 rvas , ,cr:r'rJ n 1h'. this eppcrl is tlistrisscd No r:<.rs t: 5 i r : l ,.luel, lnisccllrrrlc()Lis llclltiorls' Ilcnd rl -1 i arlv' stand ckrsetl To, //TRUE COPY// Sd,-F:.SFIINIVASA RAO JCINT REGISTRAR t 1p, SEC TION OFFICER B', a7 Hyrlerabad tC PUC] 1 . The lncome T 'x Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Be nch ' i. i';; i;;;iss rrrei of lncome Tax (Appeals)-7 Hvcerab i. fn\" r\"L\"rn. T rx Officer, Ward-9(4)' Hyderlblr$- -^ ;. il ie i; sF r v PRASAD (sc FoR INCoME --AX)' 5. Two CD CcPtr s DL wQ I HIGH COURT DATED:1 6/06/202 3 JUDGN{ENT lTTA.No.48 of 20:22 DISMISSING TIIE ^] P ]AL Iu l$E l) i' :.' I 1 4 L9 oe( "