Itta/297/2022 Of Sri Saikumar Tatipalli v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No1 297 ot2022 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 of the lncome Tax Act,1961against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B',Hyderabad in ITA No.72lHyd12020, for assessment Year 2016-17 dated 14-07-Hyderabad in ITA No.72lHyd12020, for assessment Year 2016-17 dated 14-07-2022, Veferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-2,Hyderabad, Appeal No.10186/2018-19/C|T(A)-2, dated 28-11-2019, preferredHyderabad, Appeal No.10186/2018-19/C|T(A)-2, dated 28-11-2019, preferredagainst the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mancherial. PAN/GIRNo. , dated: 28-1 2-2018. Between: Sri Saikumar Tatipalli, H.No.C-46lA, Narsingapur (V), Jaipur (M), MancherialDist., Telangana State - 504216- ...Appellant AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward -1, lvlancherial, Bellampally Road, Mancherial,Talangana State-S0421 6. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.V. RAGHU RAMCounsel for the Respondent: SRI K. MAMATHA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A.No.297 of 2O22 ORDER..-er Hon'ble Si Justlce P.SAM KOSHY) The instant appeal has ber:n liled assailing the order dated I4.O7.2022, passed by rhe Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Flyderabad Bench [,I3,, ]Hyderabad, (for short'the Tribunal') in I.'t.A.No.72/Hyd/2O2O, for theassessment year 20 1 6-20 17 . 2. atppcllalrt i{earcl Sri A.\2. Raghu Rara, learned counsel for the 3. Vide the said impugnccl order, the Income TaxAppellatc Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by theappellar.,t hcrein assailing thr: order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)_2 dated28.71.2019. The u,hole isstre revolves u,hole isstre revolves revolves around an agrecment ofagrecment of -The u,hole isstre revolves u,hole isstre revolves revolves around an agrecment ofagrecment ofsaLc excr:utet.l r;n 06.11.20 15. between onc Sri Singam Madhuraiah and the father of the appellant Sri TatimellaSrinivas. The agreement of [saLe ][was ]in respect of [an]agricultural land situated in Survey [Nos. ][103/ ]1 [and]lO3 12, Narsingpur Village, Jaipur Mandal, [Mancherial]District, T.S. As per the agreement, an [advance ][of]Rs. 1,00,0O0/- was received by the father of [the ][appellant]and balance of the amount was to [be received ][at the ][time]of registration of the sale deed. 5. The contention of the [learned ][counsel ][for ][the]appellant was that the Commissioner [of ][Income ][Tax]and the Tribunal have not [taken ][into](Appeals)-2 consideration the presumption that [has ][to ][be ][drawn]under Section 292-C of the Act, [so ][far ][as ][the ][genuineness]of the agreement and the transactions [that ][took ][place]between the father of the appellant [and the purchaser of]the property in terms of the said [agreement] 6. However, a perusal of the records [would ][revea-l ][that]the Commissioner of Income [Tax ][(Appeals)-2 ][at ][the ][hrst]instance, and a,lso the Tribunal, [have specifically ][dealt] with the said issue and the Tribunal whiie taking intoconsideration the said issue at paragraph No.1l held asunder: "For aLl these reasons, we are of the consid.ered. 5. The contention of the [learned ][counsel ][for ][the]appellant was that the Commissioner [of ][Income ][Tax]and the Tribunal have not [taken ][into](Appeals)-2 consideration the presumption that [has ][to ][be ][drawn]under Section 292-C of the Act, [so ][far ][as ][the ][genuineness]of the agreement and the transactions [that ][took ][place]between the father of the appellant [and the purchaser of]the property in terms of the said [agreement] 6. However, a perusal of the records [would ][revea-l ][that]the Commissioner of Income [Tax ][(Appeals)-2 ][at ][the ][hrst]instance, and a,lso the Tribunal, [have specifically ][dealt] with the said issue and the Tribunal whiie taking intoconsideration the said issue at paragraph No.1l held asunder: "For aLl these reasons, we are of the consid.ered. opinion that the alleged agreement of sale d.ated_06/ 1 I / 2015 is not at aLl helpfut in prouing the caseof the assessee and there is no euidence to shotuthat the assessee receiu,zd the entire saleconsideration of Rs. 43 lakhs duing th.e preuiousgear releuant to the assessme.nt year 2016-17. Euenif we belieue this, still the doubt entertained. by tlrcLd. CIT(A) that inasmuch as the assessee boughtproperty utorth Rs. 62,ZB,Z60/- on 3O/06/20j5tuherein the credit lssue o/ Rs. 40 lakhs was to beconsidered, goes untmpeachecl. We, tLrerefore, d.o notfind [ang ][reasons ]to interfere with the fi..ndings and.the conclusions reached bg the authoities belotu.There is no merit in the grou,nd s of appeal and thesame ls dtsmissed." The aforesaid finding given by the Tribunal would clearly give an indication that the Tribrrnal had applied its mindand had taken into consideration the submissions of thelearned counsel for the appellalt and thereafter, reachedto a conclusion. Thus, it becomes a finding of fact by theTribunal itself. 7, Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no question of law made out, much l ,) less a substantial question of law for admitting the present appeal. The present appeal, therefore fails and isaccordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,shall stand closed. Sd/. K. SRINIVASA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ,/SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lncome Tax Appellate [Tribunal, Hyderabad ][Bench ' B', Hyderabad] 2. The Commissioner of [lncome Tax ][(Appeals)-2, ][Hyderabad.] 3. The lncome Tax [Officer, ][Ward-1, ][Mancherial.] 4. One CC to SRI A.V. [RAM, ][Advocate ] 5. One CC to SRI K. [MAMATHA, ][Advocate ] 6. Two CD Copies kam HIGH COURT DATED:3010812023 ORDER lTTA.No.297 of 2022 THE I.T.T.A ISREJECTED to >D 11 [tI11s8]