Itta/109/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. A Sridhar Laxman
High Court
25 Feb 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/109/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. A Sridhar Laxman
Date of order
25 Feb 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/109/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. A Sridhar Laxman, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 109 of 2014
Date: 25.02.2014
Between:
The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV,Hyderabad.
… Appellant
And
A. Sridhar Laxman,Hyderabad.
… Respondent
This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No. 109 of 2014
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
We have heard Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant,and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal.
It appears that the learned Tribunal found that the AssessingOfficer wanted to reopen the case on the basis of the same material,which was available on record at the time of original assessment. Initially, the assessment order was passed considering and examiningthe same material.
Therefore, it is a clear case of two possible opinions of fact. Thesettled position of law is that two possible views are possible and whenone of them is taken up the second cannot be a ground for reopening theassessment. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with thejudgment and order of the learned Tribunal though we are not happy withthe way the Tribunal written the judgment, but the facts narrated andfindings recorded are good enough.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
___________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
___________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.