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

ITTA/47/2022

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 back to the assessing officer, which the appellant contested, arguing that the Tribunal ignored relevant materials and findings of the assessing officer and considered irrelevant materials instead. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the assessing officer for a re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 739618 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Siddharth J Desai, Sarifa BIBI Mohammed
• 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; Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); Income tax appellate tribunal; Income Tax Officer; Income Tax Tribunal Appeal
• Section: 2(14); 260-4; 2(10A)

Judgement Text

"[ 3311 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD 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:.47 OF 2022 (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B', Hyderabad in ITA No. 906/Hyd/2016, for Assessment Year 2008-09, dated 23-07 -2021 , preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-7, Hyderabad, in ITA No. 1O57lClT(A)-7t20'14-15 dated 25-02-2016 prefened against the Order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4) Hyderabad, PAN/GIR No.ACJPC 02368 dated 31-08-2015.) Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome{ax-4, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND Sri. Ramesh Chigullapally, B-13, New Fruit Market Complex, Kothapet, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad - 500 036. PAN. ACJPC 0236 B ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. J. V. PRASAD (sc FoR rNcoME TAX DEPT) Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared The Court made the following: I I I i i 'lH[l tr Qr i]uLE -U Itt {lIIIEF IUSTIC AND II_IE IIO r'BLtl 9n USTICE E UIIAL BIIUYAN II N.TUKARAMII r.-I. r-A.No .47 of 2022 IUDGNIENT :,.. Itr' :,,, r,i l':;rl Bhuur) 2 Hearci N'Ir..f . i.l)r:rsacl, icalncd Senior Standing (.ourrscl, Incomc I ts l)cplrtmcnr Frrr the appcllarit. 'fhis appcrl has bcen l)rcfcrrcd by the rcvcnue as rhc altpellant fhe appcal has becn filccl proposing.the follou,rng cluesrions as under Scction 2(t0A of rhc Jncomc 'I'ax Act, 1 961 (brieflv ,rhe , ct, hclcinaftcr) auainsr rhe ordcr tl;L cd 23.07.2021 passcd bv rhc Incornc 'I'ax , ppe[arc'fribunel, IIr-r]cr.rbad Bcnch 'll', I [1d61r1r',,1 (rricflv .rhc Trilrurral'hercinaiter) in l.'l'.r . No.906/Hyd/201,6 for rhe ursscssnrcnr vear 2008-200() 3 su bs tarrtial qlrcsli()ns o aw: 1 'hcthclon rlre lacts and Ln rhc circumstanccs of thr cast., is rror thc decrsion of the'fnl>unrrl in ignr>ring the relcvant and germanc rnatedals and findings of rhe assessing officer and in taking into consideration irr-clevant matcrials bad in law and pervcrsc and also a lailure to c.rcrcise its jurisdicuon es the [ina] fact 6nding aurhoritv ? 2. lhcthcr on lhc lacts anrl ir thc circumstanccs of thc case, the - Trilrunal rvls right io resto.rinq the lnatter back to thc filc of * 2 aSSCS!:i11g ()ifiCer though the as-scssirrg rti.flccr r:lr ttlur l ttr:irllt' llr;trIllrt on recorcl that thc assessec's intcnti()1) i: clt.Lrh l])tr (]rrtl tilc irtrtr ieN of thc leoslanvc illtcnt ancl callnot l;c classitletl as falliile rr'irltrlt thc exemptions unde r Section 2(14) of thc ' cr ? 3. flhethcr ofl thc facts and in the circutnst:rnccs o[ tlre case' thc -Iribunal was right in not considcring thc fact t lrat t he asscssce':l case falls within onc o[ the condittotls, natttclt\" Whet.her an agriculrurist rvould putchasc tlrt: land for agricultural purposes at thc pnce at 'hich thc land rvas solcl and rvhether the orvner would have cvcr sold tht' land valuing it as a l)ropertl vicl,:ling agricultural producc on tltt' basis oI its f icl