A.shaikh v. Dcit L2O2Ll [125 Taxmann.com 253] (Bombay)(Full Benchl

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAO THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY NqOME TA)( TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 323 ot2O22 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961arising out of the order of the lncome{ax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [,B ][,]Hyderabad, in ITA No.1633/Hyd/18, for assessment Y eat 2013-14 dated O1-O7 -2021arising out of the order of the lncome{ax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [,B ][,]Hyderabad, in ITA No.1633/Hyd/18, for assessment Y eat 2013-14 dated O1-O7 -2021preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-3,Hyderabad, Appeal No.0533/lTO-3(2)lHydlClT(A)116-11, dated:24-O}-2O11,Hyderabad, Appeal No.0533/lTO-3(2)lHydlClT(A)116-11, dated:24-O}-2O11,preferred against the Order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad, GIRNo.AAECR6026Q, dated 22-O3-2O1 6.No.AAECR6026Q, dated 22-O3-2O1 6. Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome-tax-1, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND M/s. Radical Bio Organics Limited, Sy.No.36 3484, Jakkepally, Yalal Mandat,Tandur, Vikarabad. (PAN- )Tandur, Vikarabad. (PAN- ) ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S.V. RAMA KRISHNAThe Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'tsLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A. No. 323 of 2022 JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel forIncome Tax appearing for the appellant and perused the record. 2. The instant appeal has been fiIed by the Departmentappeal has been fiIed by the Departmenthas been fiIed by the Departmentbeen fiIed by the DepartmentfiIed by the Departmentby the DepartmentDepartmentassailing the order, dated Ol .O7 .2021 passed inI.T.A.No.l6.13/tli.'dl I B br ttre lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal.lh dt:rabaC lJench 'lt'. I lvricrabad. The instant appeal has been fiIed by the Departmentappeal has been fiIed by the Departmenthas been fiIed by the Departmentbeen fiIed by the DepartmentfiIed by the Departmentby the DepartmentDepartment 3. The primary challenge to the order of the Tribunal is so lar asdeletion of the pcnaltl, imposed upon ttre respondcnrsunder Section 271(1)(c) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, [,the]IAct, I 96 1 '). Upon clue perusal of the impugnecl order datedIO1.O7 .2021 passecl by the Tribunal, we are of the consideredopinion that the Tribunal while allowing the appeal to the aloresaidextent has given justifiable eLnd rr_'asonable explan,ation and hasalso supported the reasons assigned in the light of r,he decision ofthe IIon'ble jt.rrisdictional I ligl-r Court,s decision in pr, CIT Vs.Baisetty (398 ITR 88| (Telangana & Apl and also anotherdecision rendered by Lhe Bombay t{igh Court in Mohd. Farhan i l A.Shaikh Vs. DCIT l2O2Ll [125 taxmann.com 253] (Bombay)(Full Benchl. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this juncture, submitsthat so far as the judgments referred to by the Tribunal areconcerned, the review is pending. Mainly, because a review hasbeen preferred by itself, the same would not be suffrcient enough tohold that the hnding arrived at by the Tribunal was without anybasis. 5. In view of the above, this Court does not find aly substantialquestion of law involved in the appeal and thus, the appeal failsand is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ciosed Sd/. K. SRINIVASAJOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The lncome'tax [Appellate ][Tribunal, ][Hyderabad Bench ]['B ][' ][Hyderabad] 2. The Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax ][(Appeals)-3, ][Hyderabad'] 3. The lncome [Tax ][Officer, ][Ward-3(2), ][Hyderabad.] 5. In view of the above, this Court does not find aly substantialquestion of law involved in the appeal and thus, the appeal failsand is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand ciosed Sd/. K. SRINIVASAJOINT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The lncome'tax [Appellate ][Tribunal, ][Hyderabad Bench ]['B ][' ][Hyderabad] 2. The Commissioner [of ][lncome Tax ][(Appeals)-3, ][Hyderabad'] 3. The lncome [Tax ][Officer, ][Ward-3(2), ][Hyderabad.] 4. One CC to [J.V. ][PRASAD, ] [lT ][DEPARTMENT ] 5. One CC to [S.V. ] [KRISHNA' ][Advocate ][ ] 6. Two CD [Copies] kam -_E_._____.= -a- HlGH COURT DATED:1710812023 JUDGMENT !TTA.No.323 ot 2022 THE APPEAL ISREJECTED t ./.11 [ztB]