Itta/297/2006 Of Shri Sharad B. Pitti v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND TWO THOUSAND AND PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF ANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: [297 OF 2006] Appeal Under Section 260 [( ]A) of the lncome [Tax ]Act, [1961 ][aggrieved ][by]the order dated 18-12-2001 in lT A No. 38 / [HYd/ ][2001 ][for ][Assessment Year ][:]1996 -97 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad [Bench]"A" Hyderabad [preferred ]against the order of the Joint [Commissioner ][of]lncometax , Special Range .3 , Hyderabad dated 30-03-1999 in PAN / GIR No.s-715/ SR.3 Between Shri Sharad B. Pifti, S/o. Sri Badriyishal Pitti, aged about 45 [years, ]Rl/o.Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The Joint Commissioner Of lncome Tax, (Assessments) Special Range-3,'Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI NAGA DEEPAK Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. SAPNDA REDDY [J.V. ] STANDING COUNSEL FOR INCOME TAX The Gourt delivered the following: JUDGMENT THI] IION'BLE TT.IE CIIIEFJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND ,THE HON'BLI] SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.297 oi2006 JUDGI\IENT: [(>et ][tlu Ilon'hle ][iln ][Cltiel ].la.rtiu [t'1ju/ ]Bhryan) Heard lv{r. Naga Deepak, leamed counsel for the appellanr and NG. Sapna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondenr. 2- This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellant against the order dated L8.12.2001 passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A',Hyderabad (rribunal) in I.T.ANo.3B/Hyd/2ooL for theassessment War 199 6-97 . 3. After a detailed hearing on 25.07.2006, this c-ourt framedthe following quesrion as subsmntiil quesrion of law for.consideration: Y/trether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,Tribunal having found that the appellant was the owner of thepersonal eff'ects and that the creditworthiness of thepurchasers could nor be doubted w.as co,,efi in law indirecting the revenue ro conducr investigation afresh on thequestion wherher rhese were pe$o nil effeca ?Tribunal having found that the appellant was the owner of thepersonal eff'ects and that the creditworthiness of thepurchasers could nor be doubted w.as co,,efi in law indirecting the revenue ro conducr investigation afresh on thequestion wherher rhese were pe$o nil effeca ? ({ \\ 4. Learned counsel [for ][the ][appellant submits ][that ][on ][the]above [issue, ][Tribunal ][had ][remanded ][the matter ][back ][to ][the ][file ][of]the assessing [officer ][for ][a fresh ][consideradon. The ][order ][of ][the]CIT(A) on rhis [issue ][was ][ser aside ][and matter ][was remanded ][back]to rhe assessing [officer ][uicle ][the ][order ][dated t8.L2.2001.] 5. According to [learned ][counsel ][for ][the ][appellant, ][though ][the]remand order [lras ][passed ][by the ][Tribunal ][on ][18.12 ][.200t ][and ][the]limitation period [for ][passing consequential ][order ][on ][remand ][as]conrcmplated [under Section ][153(3) ][of ][the ][Act ][is one ][)rear ][from]the end of the [financial year ][in ][urfiich ][the ][order ][is ][passed,]assessing officer [has ][not ][yet ]Passed [the ][consequential ][order ][on]remand. 6. without expressing [any ][opinion ][in ][this ][regard, ][we ][are ][of]the view that since [the ][Tribunat ][has remanded ][the ][matter back to] the assessing [officer ][aftpr ][se6ing ][aside ][the ][adverse ][order ][of]no [live ][issue ][can be said ][to ][survive ][for ][consideration ][in ]CIT(4, ((this appeal. iI: ; : II i 1. Appeal is acc<>rdingly closed. No costs. As a sequei, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. Sd/.C.V. MALLIKARJ U NA VARMAJOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// <)SECTION OFFICER BN HIGH COURT DATED:2210212023 iitE [ic]I.l' (,:+*JUDGMENTt.)1 3 fiPii 2fl23ITTA.No.297 of 2006 CLOSING THE ITTA DVI 3-tovz@G7t-t