Itta/1/2013 Of M/S.andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.1 of 2013 DATE: 18.06.2013 Between: A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited,Hyderabad. … Appellant And The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.1 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted on the following suggested substantial questions of law. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not perverse in notdeciding the appeal and setting it aside holding a statutoryamendment by State is additional evidence and referring to Rule46-A of Income Tax Rules which only refer to evidence on factsthat are filed before the first appellate authority? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law innot deciding any of the grounds and setting aside the matter tothe file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to considerthe issue afresh even after hearing elaborately merely on aground that there is an amendment to the State statutesubsequently, though such a ground is not taken by the appellantbut by the departmental representative? 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law innot accepting the plea of the assessee that assuming jurisdiction bythe Commissioner under Section 263 of Income Tax Act is notcorrect particularly in view of enquiry about the issue by theAssessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedingsand also that of the Commissioner of Income Tax during theproceedings under Section 263 of the Act for the Assessmentyear 2002-03 on the same issue?” From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Tribunalhas not decided anything and has remanded the matter to the file of CIT(A) toconsider the issue afresh. It has been observed by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the impugned order that since the CIT(A) had no occasion toconsider the amendments passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature on16.04.2012, we restore the issue in dispute back to the file of CIT(A) with adirection to decide the issue de-novo after examining the saidamendments. In paragraph 10, the Tribunal has further observed that “sincethe issue under consideration is identical to the case decided by the ITAT inthe assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA 693/H/11,dated 30.07.2012, respectively following the same, we set aside the matter tothe file of CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh in accordance with law, aftergiving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to put forward its case”. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has ample jurisdiction eitherto decide the issue by it or to remand the matter for fresh hearing. When the Tribunal has not decided anything else, we do not think thatany substantial question of law is involved in the matter of this nature. We,therefore, declined to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneouspetitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. No costs. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ G. ROHINI, J