Itta/139/2003 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr.a.p.srinivasa Murthy Deekshatulu

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM I.T.T.A.No.139 of 2003 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy) This appeal by the Revenue is filed against the order, dated31.01.2002 passed by the Hyderabad Bench ‘B’ of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), inI.T.A.No.1169/Hyd/1994. The respondent is an Archaka Mirasi inSrivari Temple at Tirumala. In respect of returns for the assessment year 1985-86, the AssessingOfficer determined the tax liability at Rs.2,07,350/-. After makingadjustments of advance tax etc., the payable amount was stipulatedat Rs.1,36,042/-. The respondent disputed the same. One of theprincipal sources of income shown in the returns was, from theDevasthanam itself, in the form of Panyaram at Rs.1,99,370/- andArchaka Mirasi at Rs.1,68,482/-. The respondent pleaded that thesaid amounts did not accrue to him totally and they were partitionedamong various Mirasidars. That plea did not weigh with theAssessing Officer. The respondent filed I.T.A.No.23/Hyd/1995 before theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada. Through hisorder, dated 05.04.1994, the Commissioner accepted the plea ofpartition. As a result, the tax liability was slashed downsubstantially. Dissatisfied with the order passed by theCommissioner, the Revenue filed I.T.A.No.1169/Hyd/1994 beforethe Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, through order,dated 31.01.2002. Hence, this appeal under Section 260-A of theIncome Tax Act. Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. of law: The appellant has raised the following substantial questions Incidentally, in respect of the very institution of Mirasi that isprevailing in the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, the Tribunal in itsorder, dated 09.07.1996, in I.T.A.No.23 of 1995, held that the Mirasirights are capable of being partitioned. It followed its own order, anddismissed the appeal. At any rate, what is projected in the presentappeal is a pure question of fact. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no orderas to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall alsostand disposed of. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Date:16.09.2014GJ _____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.