Itta/2/2009 Of Shri Prabhudayal Agarwal v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10 [10], Hyderabad

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABADWEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.T.T.A.No: 2 of 2OO9 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 196'l''arising out of the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B Hyderabad, in ITA Nos.504 to 5071Hyd12003, 562 to 565/Hyd/2003 for assessmentYear 1988-89 to1991-92 dated 30-05-2008 preferred against the Order of theYear 1988-89 to1991-92 dated 30-05-2008 preferred against the Order of theCommissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Guntur Camp at Hyderabad, AppealNo.0059/Tr./C|T(A)GNT/2002-03, 0058/Tr./C|T(A)GNT/2002-03,No.0059/Tr./C|T(A)GNT/2002-03, 0058/Tr./C|T(A)GNT/2002-03,057/Tr./ClT(A)GNT/2002-03, 0055iTr./ClT(A)cNT/2002-03 dated:30-12-2002,preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-5(1 XINV), Hyderabad. PAN/GlR.No.P-745 dated 3 1 -03-'l 999.5(1 XINV), Hyderabad. PAN/GlR.No.P-745 dated 3 1 -03-'l 999. Between: Shri Prabhudayal Agarwal, Secunderabad AND The lncome Officer, War 10 [10], Hyderabad ...Appellant ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Y. RATNAKAR Counsel forthe Respondent: Ms. P. SAPNA REDDY, SC appearing on behalf ofMr. J.V. PRASAD (sc FOR lT)Mr. J.V. PRASAD (sc FOR lT) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.2 of 2OO9 JUDGMENT'.(per the Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.P. Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearingon behalf of Mr. J.V. trrasad, learned Standing Counsel forIncome Tax, for the sole respondent. 2. The present is an appeal filed by the appellant underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B', at Hyderabad in I.T.A.Nos.5O4 to 5OZ andlHyd/2OO3 I.T.A.Nos.562 to 565/Hyd/2003, dated 30.05.2008 (for short,the impugned order). 3. Vide th-e impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed Tribunal partly allowed partly allowed allowed theappeals preferred by the respondent, viz., I.T.A.Nos.5O4 to5O7 /Hyd/2OO3, and simultaneously dismissed the appealspreferred by the assessee, viz., I.T.A.Nos.562, 564 and565/Hyd/2003, while partly allowing I.T.A.No.563lHyd/Ba,uide order dated 30.05.2008. Vide th-e impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed Tribunal partly allowed partly allowed allowed the \!-'':'\ \' 4. On 27.07.2009, a Division Bench of this Court admitted the instant appea-l on the following substantial que stion of law,vtz,, 'Whether on the facts and in the circum-stances of thecase, the omlbsion to consider mateial on record, submlbsionscanuassed, euidence and the case lants cited while disposing ofthe appeal u.touLd constitute a mistake apparent from the record,the appeal u.touLd constitute a mistake apparent from the record,uesting junsdiction in the Income Tax Appeltate Tibunal to re-call its order under Section 25a Q) of the Income Tax Act ?'call its order under Section 25a Q) of the Income Tax Act ?' 5. The challenge raised by the appellant in the instant appealprimarily seems to be on the ground that the appellate-Tribunalerroneously concluded that the appellant sta_rted business incomputers in 1988-99 whereas there was no such materialavailable before the Tribunal. Likewise, it was also contended bythe appellant that computation of profits on sale of computersby the respondent as also by the Tribunal is erroneous andarbitrary. 5. The challenge raised by the appellant in the instant appealprimarily seems to be on the ground that the appellate-Tribunalerroneously concluded that the appellant sta_rted business incomputers in 1988-99 whereas there was no such materialavailable before the Tribunal. Likewise, it was also contended bythe appellant that computation of profits on sale of computersby the respondent as also by the Tribunal is erroneous andarbitrary. 6. Upon going through the impugned order passed by theTribunal, what is apparently evident is that the Tribunal hadconsidered these very grounds which the appellant has raisedextensively in the grounds of appeal, and the Tribuna_l hasdecided these issues giving specific reasons while dismissing theappeals preferred by the assessee and partly allowing the '}1,.': appeals filed by the respondent. Therefore, the findings given bythe Tribunal appear to be finding on fact. Therefore, u,e are ofthe considered opinion that the question of law framed by thisCourt while admitting the appeal has to be answered in thenegative, holding that there was in fact no mistake apparent onrecord committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugnedorder. 7 . Therefore, the appeal faiis and is accordingly dismissedNo costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed SD/- C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMAJorNrysrRAR //TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER To,1 . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [,B ]' Hyderabad.2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Guntur Camp ai Hyderabad.1 . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [,B ]' Hyderabad.2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), Guntur Camp ai Hyderabad.3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-S(1)(lNV), HydLrabad.4. One CC to Mr. Y. RATNAKAR, Advocate tOpUCI5. One CC to Mr. J.V. PRASAD (SC FOR tT) tOpUCI6. Two CD Copies4. One CC to Mr. Y. RATNAKAR, Advocate tOpUCI5. One CC to Mr. J.V. PRASAD (SC FOR tT) tOpUCI6. Two CD Copies kam/jaks*- HIGH COURT DATED:2211112023 JUDGMENTITTA.No.2 of 2009 DISMISSING OFTHE APPEAL % 1[$E ] G.qozo1 2 rEts 202faeDF:"f,.,:i-,