Itta/130/2019 Of Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. N Gangaraju

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARIANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11197 OF 2024 Between: Rajnish Kumar Rai, I.P.S. (Retd.), aged about 58 years,[Son][ of][ Shri][ S.R.][ Rai.]Occupation- Assistant Professor, Indian School of Management,[Ahmedabad,]Residingat- MSH302, New Campus,IIM, Ahmedabad, SargamMarg,Vastrapur, Ahmedabad - 380 015. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, (Represented by The Secretary to[the][ Government][ of]India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi[-][ 110][ 001.)]India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi[-][ 110][ 001.)] 2. TheDirector General, Central ReservePoliceForce,BlockNo.1,C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,[the][ High][ Court][ may]be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction,in[the nature][ of][ Writ][ of]Certiorari,toquashandsetasidethedaily Orderdated20.03.2024(published a few days after the hearing on 20.03.2024)[and][ the][ reasoned] Order dated 20.03.2024 (published on 22.04.2024), and to declare that OANo. 662 of 2023 is maintainable and that the Ld. Tribunal has jurisdiction toadjudicateit. The petitioner further prays that OA No. 662of 2023berestored and the Ld. Tribunal be directed to decideit within six months fromthe disposal of this petition. The petitioner also prays that the disciplinaryproceedingsinitiatedagair)sthimthroughtheCharge-Memodated16.02.2023 may kindly be stayedtill the final disposal of OA No. 662of2023.4 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to dispense with the disciplinary proceedings daily Order dated20.03.2024 (published a few days after the hearing on 20.03.2024) and thereasoned Order dated 20.03.2024 (published on 22.04.2024), and to pass lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higji Court may bepleased to stay the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitionerthrough the Charge Memo dated 16.02.2023, issued by the RespondentNo.1.In addition, the petitioner prays that pending disposalof the WritPetition, this Hon’ble court may be pleased to stay the impugned Ordersdated 20.03.2024 (both the daily Order and the reasoned Order), includingthe directions to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/-. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondents: JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO (SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVT.) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010219222024IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI[3470](Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARITHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11197/2024 Between;Rajnish Kumar Rai,Union Of India and Others ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondent{S):1. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO(SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FORCENTRAL GOVT.) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI&THE HON'BL SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No. 11197 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard SriI. H. Syed, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Malireddy FRIDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARITHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 11197/2024 Between;Rajnish Kumar Rai,Union Of India and Others ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondent{S):1. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO(SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FORCENTRAL GOVT.) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI&THE HON'BL SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No. 11197 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard SriI. H. Syed, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Malireddy Gowtham,learnedcounselforthepetitionerandthelearnedAdditionalSolicitorGeneralofIndia,assistedbySriJosyulaBhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, through virtual mode. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India hasbeenfiledbythepetitioner,challengingtheorderdated20.03.2024inO.A.No.662 of 2023, which has been dismissed by the[Central][ Administrative]Tribunal, Hyderabad BenchCCentral Administrative Tribunal' in short), as notmaintainable. 3. The following is the prayer made in the writ petition: “to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, toquash and set aside the daily Order dated 20.03.2024 (published a few daysafter the hearing on 20.03.2024 and the reasoned Orderdated 20.03.2024publishedon22.04.2024andtodeclarethatO.A.No662of2023ismaintainable and that the Ld. Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicateit. Thepetitioner further prays that O.A. No 662 of 2023 be[restored][ and][ the]Ld.Tribunal be directed to decideit within six months from the disposal of thispetition The petitioner also prays that the disciplinary proceedings initiatedagainst him through the Charge-Memo dated 16.02.2023 may kindly be stayedtill the final disposal of O.A.No 662 of 2023.” 4. The petitioner's caseis that heis an Indian Police[Service][ Officer][ of]1992 batch of Gujarat.He was deputed as the Inspector[General][ of][ Police][ in]the Centrai Reserved Police Force(CRPF) vide order[dated][ 20.03.2015][ of][ the][ 1]respondent-union of India.He Joined duties at the Directorate General, CRPF,New Delhi on 29.04.2015 and was subsequently posted as I.G., North EasternSector, CRPF,Shillong, where he joined on 06.05.2015andservedinthatcapacity until 14.06.2017. There was some joint operation involving multiplesecurity forces and there were news of some fake encounters.The petitionerwastransferredtoLG,CIATSchool,Chittoor,AndhraPradeshandherelinquished the charge of LG, NES, Shillong, on 14.06.2017.On 16.06.2017and 19.06.2017, newspapers reportedthat thel^*^ respondententrustedapreliminary enquiry to Shri Ashok Prasad, IPS (Retired), Advisor to the MHA, toenquire into the role of the petitioner in connection with the procedural aspectsof thediscrete enquiry conducted byhim.On23.06.2017,thepetitionersubmitted a representation to the 2"^ respondent concerning the preliminaryinquiry regarding the fake encounter, for which there was no response.Hence,the petitionerfiled O.A.No.2670 of 2017 before the Principal Bench, CentralAdministrative Tribunal, New Delhi, challenging his[transfer][ to][ Chittoor][ and][ the]institutionofpreliminaryenquiryagainsthim,whichwasdismissedon09.08.2017 on the ground that since the petitioner had joined his new post, thegrievance regardinghis transfer had become infructuous.As no preliminaryenquiry wasinitiated,thePrincipal Benchdidnot consider the newspaperreports.^nd as the respondents did not disclose the preliminary enquiry that had been entrustedto Shri Ashok Prasad.The petitioner[also]filed ReviewApplication No.205 of 2017 in O.A.No.2670 of 2017 but[he][ same][ was][ dismissed]on04.10.2017.Aggrievedby thedismissalof O.A.No.2670of2017andR.A.No.205 of 2017in the said O.A., the petitioner filed W.P(Civil) 10828 of2017beforetheDelhiHighCourt.TheDelhiHighCourtdirectedtherespondents to obtain the current status of the Fact Finding Inquiry as the 1Strespondent therein admitted that a preliminary enquiry[had been]institutedagainst the petitioner. Subsequently the respondents[were][ directed][ to]file anaffidavit to that effect. On 21.08.2018, the1^‘ respondentfiled anaffidavitstating that the preliminary inquiry against the petitioner[had][ not][ been][ finalized]and that they would inform the same as soon as the[same][ was][ finalized.] 5.Duringpendencyoftheaforesaidwritpetition,thepetitionersubmitted letter to the 1^‘ respondent-Union of India on 23.08.2018, requestingfor his voluntary retirement from 30.11.2018 under Rule 16(2) of the All IndiaServices(Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 (in short 'Rules 1958') ashe had completed 50 years of age.The same was rejected[on]17.10.2018.The petitioner, however, relinquished the charge of[his][ office][ w.e.f.][ 30.11.2018.]Subsequently, he filed O.A.No.528 of 2018, on 05.12.2018[before the][ Central]Administrative Tribunal, AhmadabadBench, challenging therejection of hisapplication for voluntary retirement.On 17.12.2018, the petitioner was placedundersuspensionanda Charge Memodated14.01.2019wasservedforunauthorizedly abdicatinghis charge asI.G, CIAT, whichhe challenged byMiscellaneous Applicationsin O.A.No.528 of 2018. The Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench,by order dated 21.01.2019,grantedalimitedreliefrestraining therespondents from takinga finaldecisionin the disciplinary[proceedings]tilldisposal of O.A.No.528 of 2018, with direction that[the][ disciplinary][ proceedings]may continue. Challenging the grant of limited interim[relief,][ the][ petitioner][ filed]Special Civil Application (SCA) No.5929 of 2019in[the][ Gujarat][ High][ Court,]inwhich by order dated 14.08.2019,all the parties were[directed]tomaintainstatusquo,whichwasconfirmedtillthedisposalofthepetitions.Consequently,theproceedingsinO.A.No.528of 2018werealsostayed.O.A.No.528 of 2018 and the SCA No.5929 of 2019 are said to be pending. 6. The 1^^ respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated[28.12.2021]inrespect of the alleged fake encounters of March, 2017.Initially, the petitionerpreferred C.M.A.No.9501 of 2022in W.P(C) No. 10828[of][ 2017,]in which byorder dated 22.02.2022, the Delhi High Court directed to maintain status quo.But, finally, the writ petition was closed on 24.01.2023,in view of the showcause notice issued on 28.12.2021, however granting liberty to the petitioner topursue his grievance before the Central Administrative[Tribunal.][ The][ petitioner]thenfiledO.A.No.65of2023beforetheCentralAdministrativeTribunal,Ahmadabad Bench, challenging the preliminary enquiry conducted against himand the show cause notice dated 28.12.2021. The O.A. was dismissed by orderdated16.02.2023onthegroundoflackofterritorialjurisdiction,Thepetitioner's Review Application No.l of 2023 was also[dismissed][ on][ 22.03.2023.]The petitioner challenged the said orders before the High Court of Gujarat in aSpecial Civil Appeal No. 7133 of 2023, which was dismissed by the order dated 01.05.2023.The petitioner then filed S.L.P.No.lll34 of 2023, which is pendingbefore the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. Therespondent-unionof Indiaissueda charge memodated16.02.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed[O.A.No.85][ of][ 2023][ in][ the]Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench.The[same][ was][ dismissed]by order dated 13.04.2023 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner hasnot challenged the order dated 13.04.2023. 01.05.2023.The petitioner then filed S.L.P.No.lll34 of 2023, which is pendingbefore the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. Therespondent-unionof Indiaissueda charge memodated16.02.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed[O.A.No.85][ of][ 2023][ in][ the]Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench.The[same][ was][ dismissed]by order dated 13.04.2023 for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner hasnot challenged the order dated 13.04.2023. 8. The petitioner, however, filed another O.A.No.662 of 2023, before theCentral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, on 06.11.2023, challengingthe same charge memo dated 16.02.2023.The O.A. has been dismissed, byorder dated 20.03.2024 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 9. The Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad,[observed][ that][ at]present thepetitioner was neither working in the organisation, thoughit wasmentionedin thesuspensionorder/charge memo,norresidingwithinthejurisdictionoftheCentralAdministrativeTribunalatHyderabad.Thepetitioner's O.A.No.85 of 2023, against the same charge[memo][ was][ dismissed]by the Central Administrative Tribunalat Ahmadabad.Thepetitioner hadchallenged the Show Cause Notice dated 28.12.2021in[O.A.No.65][ of][ 2023,]which having been dismissed and thewrit petition in[S.C.A.No.7133][ of][ 2023]also having been dismissed by the Gujarat High Court, the matter was pendingin S.L.P.No.11134 of 2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view thereof. the petitioner could not have approached the Central[Administrative][ Tribunal][ at]Hyderabad for venting his grievance, afresh.The matter was subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The Charge Memo was issued pursuant to theShow Cause Notice dated 28.12.2021. 10. SriI. H. Syed, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner submittedthat the O.A.No.65 of 2023 was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, onthe ground that the petitioner had not retired from service nor his services wereterminated. The Review petition was also dismissed.The O.A.No.662 of 2023filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, couldnot bedismissed as not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner was treated, inservice, and the respondents also considered the petitioner in service and fixedhis Head Quarter at Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, following his suspension.So inview of Rule 6(i) of the Administrative Tribunal (Jurisdictional ) Rules, 1987,therewasterritorialjurisdictionoftheCentralAdministrativeTribunal,Hyderabad Bench, even though Andhra Pradesh may not betheplaceofpetitioner'sresidence. Hesubmittedthatthepetitionerwouldhavesomeremedy against the charge memo, before any of the Benches of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal and he cannot be made remedy[less.] 11. No other point was argued.Reliance was also not placed on anyjudgment, before us. 12.LearnedAdditionalSolicitor General,submittedthatthereisnoillegalityintheimpugnedorderoftheCentralAdministrativeTribunal,Hyderabad.The petitioner's case is that he ceased to be in servicein view ofhis letter of voluntary retirement.The respondents' case is that the petitionerdid not cease to be in service as his application for voluntary retirement was 11. No other point was argued.Reliance was also not placed on anyjudgment, before us. 12.LearnedAdditionalSolicitor General,submittedthatthereisnoillegalityintheimpugnedorderoftheCentralAdministrativeTribunal,Hyderabad.The petitioner's case is that he ceased to be in servicein view ofhis letter of voluntary retirement.The respondents' case is that the petitionerdid not cease to be in service as his application for voluntary retirement was rejected. The issueis pending adjudicationin Special Civil Application (SCA)No.5929 of 2019 before the Gujarat High Court andin[O.A.No.528][ of][ 2018]before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Further, the order ofrejection of O.A.No.65 of 2023 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahamadabadand its affirmation by the High Court of Gujarat, such matter is pending in theHon'ble Apex court in S.L.P.No.lll34 of 2023. In the S.L.P, the petitioner filedapplication for interim relief, but no interim relief was granted as on today.Hesubmitted that the Tribunalhas rejected O.A.in view of pendency of theproceedingsbeforethe Hon'ble Supreme Court withrespecttothesamesubject matter, in which show cause notice dated 28.12.2021 was issued nowfollowed by the charge memo, whichis only the next step. He submitted thatthe petitioner's contentionis that he ceased to be in service and therefore, thematterbeingsubjudicebeforetheHon'bleApexCourt,theTribunalatHyderabad has rightly passed the order. 13. Wehaveconsideredtheaforesaidsubmissions advancedby thelearned counsel for the parties and perused the material[on][ record.] 14. O.A.No.65 of 2023filed by thepetitioner was dismissed by theCentral Administrative Tribunal at Ahmedabad and the review application No.lof 2023 was also dismissed.The dismissal was on the ground of lack ofterritorial jurisdiction.The petitioner in the said O.A. inter alia had set up thecase that he retired from service on submission of his application for voluntaryretirement with effect from 30.11.2018.The said contention was not acceptedby the Tribunal and finding that it had no territorial jurisdiction after observing that the petitioner continuedin service, the O.A.[was][ dismissed.]The HighCourt of Gujarat also dismissed the Special Civil Appeal[No.7133][ of][ 2023.]Thematter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in [ (C)][ No.][ 11134][ of][ 2023.]In the said SLP an Order dated 19.05.2023 was passed[which][ is][ as][ under:] “Issue notice. On the next date of hearing, we shall hear the question[of][ territorial]jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad,[to][ entertain][ the]petitioner’s application.” 15. The petitioner's contention therefore in the previous[O.As][ is][ that][ the]petitionerhasretiredon30.11.2018.InOA/21/662/2023inwhichtheimpugnedorderdated20.03.2024hasbeenpassedbytheCentralAdministrative Tribunal (CAT) at Hyderabad, as per[Ex.P3,][ the][ petitioner's][ case]as set up is the same that, he retired from service[on][ 30.11.2018][ i.e.,][ voluntary]retirement. Specific ground has been taken at Ground[No.5.4][ that"....//?][ view][ of]the settled position of law, he has retired on 30.11.2018.Therefore, he cannotbe proceeded againstOnce the petitioner's constant stand is that he hasretired in view of his voluntary retirement notice,[on][ 30.11.2018,][ which][ was][ not]accepted by the Tribunal at Ahmedabad, and such matter[is][ pending][ before the]Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP, we are of the view that[the][ jurisdiction][ of][ the]Tribunal whether at Ahmedabad or at Hyderabad cannot[be][ decided,][ at this]stage, by the Tribunal at Hyderabad. It is dependent[upon][ the][ determination][ of]the question, whether the petitioner has retired voluntarily,[as][ submitted][ by][ him]or he still continue in service, which is the contention[of][ the][ Union][ of][ India][ and]its authorities.Any parallel enquiry by any other[Court/Tribunal,][ the][ matter] being pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, would[neither][ be][ appropriate][ nor]as per judicial discipline and decorum.If the petitioner[had][ accepted][ the]finding that he continues in service, the matter would[have][ been][ different.]Inour view,it cannot be that the Central Administrative[Tribunal,] Hyderabad[ will]have jurisdiction because in the suspension order,[the][ petitioner's][Head][ Quarter]is fixed at Chittoor, but for the disciplinary proceedings[the][ same][ shall][ be][ bad]on the ground that the petitioner had retired on 30.11.2018.The petitioner iseither in service or not in service. It cannot be both. 16. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thatthe petitioner cannot be made remediless, we are not[inclined][ to][ accept.][ The]reason is that the petitioner is not remediless.The[petitioner][ is][ in][ fact availing]the remedy, in various proceedings, as is evident in[narration][ of][ facts][ supra.]Atthis stage, the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunalis sub judice.So, atpresent,itis not a case of the petitioner being denied[any][ remedy][ or][ the]petitioner being rendered remediless.The questionis before whichCentralAdministrative Tribunal he will have jurisdiction,[for][ which][ parallel][ proceedings]are not to be drawn. The applicability of Rule 6 (1) or (2)[ is] also dependent onthe determination of such question of fact.In view[of][ the][ petitioner's][ specific]pleading in the present OA/21/662/2023, as mentioned[above,]it would have tobe determined, on determination of the question if[the][ petitioner][ is][ or][ is][ not][ in]service. The matter is pending before the Hon'ble Apex[Court.][ The][ impugned]charge memo is, in continuation of the show cause notice[dated][ 28.12.2021.] 17. Consequently, we areof the view that the Tribunaldidnotact illegally nor committed any apparent error of law in dismissing the O.A, as notmaintainable, for the reasons recorded in the order. 18. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugnedorderof theCentral Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 19. Writ Petitionis devoid of merit and is dismissed. 20. No order as to costs. Pendingmiscellaneouspetitions,ifany,shallstandclosedin consequence. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A VIJAYA BABUASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, FICER 1. One CC to SRI MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Advocate 2. OneCCto SRIJOSYULABHASKARARAO(SENIORPANELCOUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVT.) Advocate 3. Three CD Copies GSSK HIGH COURT DATED: 20/09/2024 ORDER WP.No.11197 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS 4*19 MAR 2025^, Current Section IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 130 OF 2019 Appeal under Section 260 A of Income Tax Act 1961, aggrieved bythe order dated 26.09.2018 in I.T.A.No.1369/Hyd/2016 (Assessment year2010-2011) before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HyderabadBenches“B”,HyderabadandpreferredagainsttheorderoftheCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals),Kurnool,dated12.07.2016bearing Appeal No. ITA No.0379/CIT(A),Knl/2014-15 and preferred againsttheorderoftheIncome-TaxOfficer,Circle-1,AnanthapurinPAN/GIR-.NO.ARTPG4702B/A.Y.2010-2011/ITO/Ananthapur,dated28.03.2013. Between: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurnool Charge, MVP complex,D.No. 43-128-3, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool -518001. AND ...APPELLANT Naraboyina Gangaraju, Prop; Sree Venkateswara Transport,[D.No.][ 15-]741, Vijayanagar Colony, Tadipatri, Anantapur - 515411 [PAN NO. ] ...RESPONDENT ^lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Between: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurnool Charge, MVP complex,D.No. 43-128-3, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool -518001. AND ...APPELLANT Naraboyina Gangaraju, Prop; Sree Venkateswara Transport,[D.No.][ 15-]741, Vijayanagar Colony, Tadipatri, Anantapur - 515411 [PAN NO. ] ...RESPONDENT ^lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the[circumstances][ Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to dispense with from filing of the certified copy of the order ofHonble Tribunal, Hyderabad Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B NARASIMHA SARMA (SC FORINCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDARANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR I.T.T.A. No.130 of 2019 JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar) The learned counsel for the appellant-Department prays[leave][ of]the Court to withdraw the instant appeal, asit falls below the monetarylimits (i.e. Rs.2 Crores) fixed by the Board, vide[Circular][ No.09/2024]inF.No.279/Misc./M-74/2024-ITJ, dated 17.09.2024.The[learned][ counsel]for the appellant has alsofiledinto Court a copy of thecertificate.receivedfromtheAssistantCommissionerofIncome-Tax,Circle-1Kurnool,whichcontainsinstructionstowithdrawthe appealfortheaforementioned reason. 2)The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is placedon record. Leave granted.on record. Leave granted. 3)Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.[No][ order][ as][ to]costs.costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,[shall][ stand]closed.SD/-E.KAMESWARA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR//true copy//SECTlipffo^lCER To,Hyderabad Benches “B, atTax Appellate Tribunal,1. The IncomeHyderabad.Tax Appellate Tribunal,1. The IncomeHyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Kurnool,[Kurnool]District.District. 3. The Income-Tax Officer, Circle-1 Ananthapur, Ananthapur[District.] 4. One CC toSri. B Narasimha Sarma Advocate 5. One CC to Sri. Dundu Manmohan Advocate 6. Three CD Copies SAM TAG HIGH COURT DATED:13/12/2024 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.130 of 2019 /O519 MAK 20?5ICurrent Section. DISMISSING THIS I.T.T.A. AS WITHDRAWN