THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 V. M/S.TEJESH KUMAR KODALI

ITTA/298/2019

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 had dismissed the Revenue's appeal concerning the assessment year 2010-2011. The core issue was the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the Tribunal found to be improper as the respondents did not adhere to the prescribed timeline for such actions. The Tribunal's decision was based on judicial precedents and the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 719930 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplementary Family Trust vs. CIT, CIT vs. K.M. Pachayapan, KIM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: B SAPNA REDDY
• Keywords: Income escaping assessment; Judicial precedents; Undersated income; Improper and illegal notice
• Section: 147; 148; 143(2); 260A

Judgement Text

"[ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAIIA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 298 ot 2019 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lnconre Tax Act, '1961 arising out of the order of the lncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' Hyderabad, in ITA No.290lHydl2O14, for assessment Year 2O1O-11 dated 30-10- 2015 prefened against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad, ITA No.0419/ACIT 16(lyClT(A)-Vl2O12-13 dated:31-10+013, preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Circle 16(1), Hyderabad PAN/GlR No.ABZPK0052E dated 22-3-2013. Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome-tax-4, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND M/s.Tejesh Kumar Kodali, Flat No.1101, A-block, Fortune Towers, 11h flcor, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500 032. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. B. SAPNA REDDY, FOR SRl. J.V. PRASAD SC FOR IT DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SIII JUSI'ICE I'.SAN{ KOSI{Y AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXN{I N, ITAYANA ALISHETTY ITTA NO. 298 of 2019 JU DGIVIENT (p<:r Hrn ble Srt Jttstite P'SA[[ KOSIIY) Heard Sri B.Sapna Reddv. Iearned standing counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 260A ol thc Ittt:otrlc -I'ax Act' l96l' has been preferredbytheRevenueaSlheappellarrtlt!.I:LiIrs[tlreorderdt.30.l0.20l5 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal' Hydcrabad Bench 'B\" Uyderabad, in I.T.A.No.290/Hyd/2014 tbr the A:;scssrncnt years 2010-2011' 3. Vide the impugned order the l-ribunal has disrnissed the appeal of the Revenue affirming the order passed by thc CIT appcals 4. Learned counsel for the appcllant rcfcrs tr thc provisions under Section 147 andthe explanation-ll provided undcr thc ;aid section shorving that it is wellwithinthepowersoftheauthoritiestorc':penoftheassessmentinthe event of materials found which would show that there was income escaping on the part of the assessee. 5. It would be relevant at this juncture to titke a notc of the f,rnding given by the Tribunal in paragraph No 4' rvhcrein tlLe '['ribunal has lound that the retum for the assessment year 20t0-201I 'as fitcd on 10 05'201l The respondents, if at all' found that thcrc has beer an undcrstated income or has 2 colnpuled excessive ta in an_ . ntanncr. can lnrtrate proccedings under Section . Thc period prescribed was six months from the end of the The periocl available lor initiating proceedings under Section Act was available with the Department uptill 30.09.2012. However, bypassing the said provision of law, the respondents have straight away issued a notice undcr Scction l4g initiating the proceedings under Section I47. This according ro rhe Tribunal was improper and illegal. The finding of the Tribunal *'as bascd upon the judicial precedents on identical set of facts and the issue whicrr has arso been lead to have raised by the Hon,bre Supreme court in the casc o['Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam,s supprementar Family Trust vs. CITI, which has again been followed by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.M.pachayapan2 and it also reflects that the Delhi High Court also has takcn rhe same view in the case of KIM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Assistant Dircctor of Income Tax3. 6. Further perusal of the unpugned order would reflect that the similar view has also been taken by the other Income Tax Appe,ate Tribunar which has also been referred to in the impugned order 143 of the Act financial year. 143(2) of the 7 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substantial question ol. law made out by the appellant in the present ' 12@o; zlz rrR :ar ' (200s) (3O4 rrR 2O4) ' (2@71Q92 tTR 4sl l appeal and the order passed by the l-ribunal ,loes not arra,t irrtcrl.erence. The Appeal thus fails and is accordingly re.iccted. 8. As a sequel, rniscellaneous applications pendine i[. an1,, shall stand closed. No ordcr as fo cosls. To, kam VH Sd/. B.S. CHIRANJ EVI JOINT REGIST R //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncometax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderal:ad Bench ' B ' Hyderabad' 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-V, Hyderabad' 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax C)ircle 16(1), Hyderabad' 4. One CC to SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT [OPUC] 5. One CC to M/s B. SAPNA REDDY, SC FOtt lT DEPARTMENT [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies B HIGH COURT DATED:2710912023 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.298 of 2019 THE APPEAL IS REJECTED a^rc-'6 v)t -) .L 3 1 0[T 2123 a T 5 F rl 1 .2. I :.) 't) i .. ?ii .:. I t. ; .1. .t -. ,i, / * t) -Hq- "