Itta/139/2014 Of Sri Mellacheruvu Veerambhotla Gputa v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

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. 139 of 2014 Date: 04.03.2014 Between: Sri Mellacheruvu Veerambhotla Gupta,Guntur District. … Appellant And Commissioner of Income Tax,Guntur. … 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. 139 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal dated 11.12.2013 in relation to theassessment year 2008-09 and sought to be admitted on the followingsuggested questions of law: “a) Whether the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal is in accordancewith law, weight of evidence, facts and circumstances of thecase? b) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in upholding theadditions made to income on the basis of promissory notes whichare void for want of consideration u/s. 43 of the NegotiableInstruments Act, 1881? c) When the “negative fact” that promissory notes are withoutconsideration is established by the sworn statements of both themaker and the holder independently are the authorities right inlevying tax without rebuttal/ d) Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in overlooking the factthat the promissory notes were not witnessed only becausethey were never acted upon? e) Whether or not the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal upholding theadditions made only on the basis of void promissory notes andnothing else is perverse? f) Whether the authorities who treated the promissory notes asof no worth and consequence by not returning them within 3years justified in relying upon them to make additions? g) Whether the addition made by the assessing authority without any material is sustainable?” It would appear from the aforesaid suggested questions of lawthat the impugned judgment and order has not been challenged. Rather,the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, which was sought to berectified by the appellant under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short, “the Act”) was sought to be challenged. But, factually,the aforesaid judgment and order is not appealed against. The learnedTribunal on fact found that there is no error apparent from record,meaning thereby, the learned Tribunal did not find any material toexercise jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Act. Learned counsel argued on merit of the matter in relation to thefirst judgment and order. Simply, we cannot entertain this argument, asit is not the subject matter of the rectification proceedings. When the learned Tribunal found that there is no obvious andpatent mistake nor does it appear apparently from the records thecorrection under the aforesaid Section is not called for. We set out therelevant findings of the learned Tribunal as under: “Considering the facts of the case, we are of the consideredview that there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal and groundstaken by the assessee are beyond the purview of Section 254(2) ofthe Act.” We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with this order. Moreover, we noticed that patently wrong information has been suppliedto this Court when the appellant states that by order dated 11.12.2013the earlier order dated 09.11.2012 has been confirmed. But, it is not sounder the law. The earlier order remains as there was no mistake and inexercise of the power under Section 254(2) of the Act there is noprovision for confirming of any order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Date: 04.03.2014ES K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J