Itta/267/2022 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. The East India Petroleum Pvt. Ltd

rN rHE HrcH.orTf8IorJllBlt E oF TELANGANA THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBERTWO THoUSAND AND rWer.rYrirnf e-' PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYrHE H.N,BLE sRr JUSTT.E tlir, ,o*o"ANA ALrsHErry INCOM E TAXTRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:267 OF 2022 rncome tax Apperate Tribunar Under Section 260 -A of the rncome TaxAct' 1961 Act' 1961 aggrieved by the order of the rncome Tax Apperate Tribunar,Hyderabad Bench-B , Hyderabad dated 24-08-2021 in rrA No. 2402 l Hydt 2018preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) _5,Signature Towers Hyderabad Bench-B , Hyderabad dated 24-08-2021 in rrA No. 2402 l Hydt 2018preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) _5,Signature Towers , Kondapur, Hyderabad in Appeat No. OSZ112014-15 /ClT (A) -5 dated /ClT (A) -5 dated 03'10-201g preferred against the order of the Deputy commissionerof Income Tax , Circte _2 (2), Hyderabad dated 30-12-2011 in pAN / GtR No.AAACE4494Kof Income Tax , Circte _2 (2), Hyderabad dated 30-12-2011 in pAN / GtR No. Between: KondTheapur, Princip.al Commissioner Opp.Botanical Gardens, of lncome UVae,iUaJ.'-' "Tax_2, 6rhANDAND Floor, Signature Towers....APPELLANT The East lndia petroleum p,HrJ"* bil':i6o ffi :iHi,[.XAi[ :AZ ff)*o [n" ][rowe ][is' ] [reen ][La ]nds, Bes umpet, ...RESPONDENT Counset for the Appellant: SRt. A. RADHA KRISHNA Counsel forthe Respondent: None appearedThe Court made the foltowing: ORDERThe Court made the foltowing: ORDER i THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTYI.T.T.A.No.267 OF 2022 ORDE!:/,, ' ' :,t, :' [, ].',,\'P,salt KosHY) I'his appt:al under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,196 1 . has been fllcd erssailing the order, dated 24.08.202 1 passedbr thc Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B'Hrrlcr.;rbad. (for short "the Tribunal') in I.T.A.No2402/Hydl2Ot8for tlrt Assessmenl Year 2OO7 2OOa 2. Challenge rnade by the revenue is to the order passed bv theC.1.1'. (Appeals) ar-rcl also that of the Tribunal so far as disallo',r'anceof Rs.2,46,00.OOO/ made by the Assessing Ofhcer tori,,ardsunrcported receipts lrom M/s. Wardha Power Co., and addition ofRs.5,0O,0O,000/ - made under Section aO(a)(ia) of the Act, 196 t.3. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to theorder passed bv the Tribunal and stated that the Tribunal as alsothe C.l.T. (Appeals) have heard in as much as in appreciating thefact that there u,as gross receipt from M/s. Wardha Power PrivateLimitcd which u.as not offered to ta-x by the Assessee to the tur-re ofRs.2,46,OO,000/ , likewise, there was also a disallowance ofRs.5,0O,00,000/- made under Section ao(a)(ia) of the Act, 196 l.Both t hese facts have not been properly appreciated and therefore \ ..'-;: #$ PSK,J & LNA,.tI.T.T.A.No.267 oJ 2O22 the instant appeal needs to be admitteci on the aforesaid facts lor the Tribunal having [q:rongl), ]considered / u,rongl.i, appreciatcd thecontentions that were raised \. 4. That on perusal of the records particularh' going through theorder that has been passed by the C.l.T. (Appeals) and which isfurther been afhrmed by the Tribunal we find that these vcrycontentions on which the present appeal have been raiserl. hasbeen duly considered by the Tribr.rnal. The Tribunal has gont: ir-rtothe lactual details and reached to the conclusion that theC.l.T.(Appeals) was [justihed]1n disallowing the same, both inrespect of disallowance of the receipts of Rs.2,46,O0,00O/ lromM/s. Wardha Power Co. Likeu,ise the Tribunal has further takennote of the specifrc agreements that were entered into between theAssessee and M/s. Amongst VIZ Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Sainj. 1'akinginto consideration the conditions0 of the agreement andtransactions between the parties, the Tribunal reached to theconclusion that there is no infirmity so far as the C.l.T. (Appeals)deleting the addition of Rs.5,0O,OO,000/ - made by the AssessingOfficer under Section aO(a)(ia) of the Act, 196 1, treating it ascontingent in nature. 5. Given the fact that the Tribunal has extensively andelaborately considered and discussed the grounds and objections .J s.hich the app('ll:tr)r har.e raiscd in the present appeal, ir.e hnd thalthe rt'e.sons assrryred l;r the Tribunal as u,ell as the C.l.T. (Appeals)are I)LIre qucsrion ol facts rvhich have been duly appreciated,consi(lcred arrrl i lt,zrlt u ith l;r the Tribunal u,hile reaching to thecon('rl rrcnt Iinri irr g oI lact. 6. lVe do not lltrcl an.r sutrstantial question of law made out bythe appellant in rhe present appeal and the appeal fails.Accorrlir-rgly, this:rppeal is rejected. No order as to costs. 7. Consetlucn I lr'. miscellant,ous lletitions pending, if any, shallstanrl closed. Sd/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRAR @ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To1.The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, [Bench, Hyderabad]2.The Commissioner of lncome Tax [( ]Appeals) [-5, ][Signature ][Towers ],Kondapur, Hyderabad1.The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, [Bench, Hyderabad]2.The Commissioner of lncome Tax [( ]Appeals) [-5, ][Signature ][Towers ],Kondapur, Hyderabad43The One Deputy CC to SRl. Commissioner A. RADHA KRISHNA, of lncome Tax [Advocate ], Circle TOPUCI[-2 (2), Hyderabad.]5Two CD Copies5Two CD Copies -{ HIGH COURT DATED:19/10/2023 g STAr6af,ac20 [Nt\l][ il,J]JUDGMENTo*{i*,;oITTA.No.267 of 2022i.Ji]S PT,JC REJECTING THE ITTAWITHOUT COSTS .J i l