Itta/105/2025 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4 v. M/S. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING tNcoME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: [105 ] [2025] Appeal under section 260-4 of [the ][lncome Tax ][Act, ][agalnst ][the ][order]dated 15-0'1-2025 in l.T.A.No.84lHydl2021 [for the ][assessment ][year ][2016'17 ][on]the file of the lncome Tax Appellate [Tribunal ]['B' ][Bench. ][Hyderabad] Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax- [4, ][Hyderabad.] ...Appellant AND M/s. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd, Door No. [2-2- ][11O511O, ][Trlak ][Nagar Hyderabad]500082,Telangana ... Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. Sudhakar [Reddy ][(Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX)] Counsel for the Respondent: None [Appeared] The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.tOS OF 2o2s JUDGMENT@er [Ih,t'l)le ][S.a.tustLce p_Sant ]Kosh\) Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, iearned Senior Standing Counselfor Income Ta-x, appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. The instant appeal under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act,196 1, has been prelerred by the Revenue as the appellant against theorder, dated 15.O1.2025,. passed by the Income Ta_x AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad 'B" Bench, Hyderabad, in I.T.A.No.8aIHyd/2O2lfor the Assessment Year 2016' 17 . 3. The prim ar1. ground of challenge raised bv the k:arned StanclingCounsel appearing for the appellant was that the CommissionerAppeals as also the ITAT has failed to properly appreciate the Rule 4oAof the Income Tax Rules, 1962 dealing with the additional evidence tobe produced beforc the appeilate forum. 4 The contention of the learned Standing Counsel [or the appellant that the Commissioner appeals as also the ITAT ought to have remanded the matter for scrutinizing the additionar evidence rvhichwas produced before the appellate forum for the flrst time. 5. However, perusal of record, particularly, the findings given bythe ITAT, we find that the very ground raised by the appellant wasdealt with by the learned ITAT categorically. The findings of thelearned ITAT is reproduced hereinunder: up the said deficiency,said deficiency,deficiency, "To makeup the said deficiency,said deficiency,deficiency,all the relevantvouchers /bills/ evidences producedby the assesseebefore the Ld. CIA (A) in support of claim of expenditureof Rs.6,23, lO,7TS/_. Therefore, the claim of assesseehas been substantiated before the Ld. CIA (A) in support of claim of expenditureof Rs.6,23, lO,7TS/_. Therefore, the claim of assesseehas been substantiated by the extracts in the book ofaccount and supporting bills and vouchers which r.r,asfurther corroborated by independent evidence in theshape of Bank Account Statement. Once the claim hasaccount and supporting bills and vouchers which r.r,asfurther corroborated by independent evidence in theshape of Bank Account Statement. Once the claim hasbeen supported by Books of Accounr and bills &vouchers as rvell as independent evidence of BankAccount Statement, the need of further verification v'asright not felt by Ld. CIT (A)."vouchers as rvell as independent evidence of BankAccount Statement, the need of further verification v'asright not felt by Ld. CIT (A)." 6' The aforesaid findings by itself wourd go to show that both thecommissioner Appeals as arso the learned ITAT u,ere satisfied nith thenature of evidence that was adduced. The additional evidences wereonly in the forum of corroborative evidences supporting bank accountstatements. The other ledgers already produced by the AssessingOfficer, in which the learr.red ITAT linds that mere;;-submission oft_ 6' The aforesaid findings by itself wourd go to show that both thecommissioner Appeals as arso the learned ITAT u,ere satisfied nith thenature of evidence that was adduced. The additional evidences wereonly in the forum of corroborative evidences supporting bank accountstatements. The other ledgers already produced by the AssessingOfficer, in which the learr.red ITAT linds that mere;;-submission oft_ the relevant vouchers to the Assessing Ofhcer ald producing them forthe first time before the appellant forum by itself cannot be said to befactually incorrect.the first time before the appellant forum by itself cannot be said to befactually incorrect. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, r.r,e do not find anv substantialthe aforesaid reasons, r.r,e do not find anv substantialaforesaid reasons, r.r,e do not find anv substantialr.r,e do not find anv substantialdo not find anv substantialnot find anv substantialfind anv substantialanv substantialsubstantialquestion of lau, m ade out by the appellants. The appea,l fails and isaccordingly rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, r.r,e do not find anv substantialthe aforesaid reasons, r.r,e do not find anv substantialaforesaid reasons, r.r,e do not find anv substantialr.r,e do not find anv substantialdo not find anv substantialnot find anv substantialfind anv substantialanv substantialsubstantial 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shallstand closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASADQEPUTY II\'t secflon oFFrcERJ //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The lncome Tax Appellate [Tribunal ]['B' ][Bench. ][Hyderabad.]2. One CC to Mr K Sudhakar [Reddy (Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX) ]3. Two CD CoPiesKam,?SL W HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 JUDGMENTlTTA.No.105 of 2025 THE APPEALIS REJECTED 5\aa\ 1BE 416tL,)i,_)'t:()05 [206]t oE5o.,'-.,'r t€-(l