Itta/31/2003 Of Commssr.of Income Tax.a.p-I,Hyd v. M/S.p.e.s.engineers.hyd

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWOTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY |.T.T.A. NO: 31 OF 200 3 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260 of the Income Tax Act,agarnst the Order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [,A,]Hyderabad in ITA No.279lHyd/'1999 for assessment year 1995-96 dated 19lo2l2oo1preferred against the order of the commissioner of lncome Tax Andhra pradesh -1,Hyderabad in HQRs.File No.H.Qrs l/50/iB/gB-99 dated 30/03/1999 preferred againstthe order of the Assistant commissioner of lncome Tax, pAN/GlR No.p-220lAC-4(5)/ Hyderabad Circie -4(5), Hyderabad. Between: Commissioner of lncome Tax, A.P.-1, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND M/s. P.E.S-Engineers (P) Ltd., 6-3-1090/1/1A, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT For the Appellant : SRI B.NARASTMHA SARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL REp.FOR MS.K,MAMATA CHOWDARY, Sr. SC FOR t.T.DEPARTMENT For the Respondent : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN, Advocate The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDYI.T.T.A. No.31 of 2OO3 JUDGMENT: tPer [t1e ][Hon ][bte ][the ]C4ef Justrce lJjoi Bhugoal Heard Mr. B.Narsimha Sarma, learned counselrepresenting Ms. K.Mamata Chowdary, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for Income Tax Department appearing forthe appellant and Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, iearned counselfor the respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 2604 of the Income Ta-x Act,1961, has been fiied against the order dated 19.02.2001passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HyderabadBench A', Hyderabad (Tribunal)1n LT.A.No. 279 I H _t,d I 1999for the assessment year 1995-96 3. In the appeal, the folion,ing substantial questrons of lar,,, have been proposed: "A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribuna.l is justihed in holding thatinitiation of the revisiona.l jurisdiction by the Commissionertt/s. 263 of the Act, is impermissible in law ?B) Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribuna] thatall the issues - factual and legal had been taken into account by the assessing officer in the assessmentU/s.1a3(3) of the Act, is based on material on record. ?C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified inholding that the assessee's activity amounts toU/s.1a3(3) of the Act, is based on material on record. ?C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified inholding that the assessee's activity amounts tomanulacturing activity of an article or a thing in anindustrial undertaking wthin the purview of Section 80 IAof the Act, notwtthstanding, contract involving erection ofpenstock pipes in the Dam site with inevitable associationof civrl work ?of the Act, notwtthstanding, contract involving erection ofpenstock pipes in the Dam site with inevitable associationof civrl work ? D) Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that thereis manufacturing activity of an article or a thing in theprocess of delivery and erection of penstock pipes is correctin law inspite of decision of the Supreme Court inBuddaraja's case ?is manufacturing activity of an article or a thing in theprocess of delivery and erection of penstock pipes is correctin law inspite of decision of the Supreme Court inBuddaraja's case ? 4. On 1 1.03.20O3, the appeal was admitted. 5. In the hearing today, we have perused the assessmentorder dated 28.01.2000. We find therefrom that the taxableincome of the respondent r,,,as determined at Rs.34,52,835.00and quantum ol ta-x to be paid was assessed atRs. 19,47,9I8.00. 6. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issuedCircular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, arnending theprevious Circular No.3 of 2018, dated ll.O7.2Ol8, by furtherenhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals by theIncome Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate - \.] 4. On 1 1.03.20O3, the appeal was admitted. 5. In the hearing today, we have perused the assessmentorder dated 28.01.2000. We find therefrom that the taxableincome of the respondent r,,,as determined at Rs.34,52,835.00and quantum ol ta-x to be paid was assessed atRs. 19,47,9I8.00. 6. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issuedCircular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, arnending theprevious Circular No.3 of 2018, dated ll.O7.2Ol8, by furtherenhancing the monetary limits for filing appeals by theIncome Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate - \.] Tribunals, High Courts and [Supreme ][Court ][as ][a ][measure ][for]reducing litigation. In [paragraph ][2 ][of ][the ][said ][circular ][rve]{ind that the monetary [limit ][fixed ][for filing ][an ][appeal ][before]the High Court is [Rs.1.00 ][crore.] of7 . In the instant [appeai, ][tax effect ][is]Rs. i9,47,9 i8.00, which [is well ][below ][the monetary ][limit'] 8. Therefore, the appeal [filed ][by the ][Department ][is]dismissed in terms of the [aforesaid ][Circular ][No ][17 ][of ][2019,]dated 08.08.2019. However, [if ][the ][appeal ][comes ][within ][the]exception under paragraph [10 ][of Circular ][No.3 ][of ][2018, ][it]would be open to the Income [Tax Department ][to ][seek revival]of the appeal. Miscellaneous applications [pending, ][if ][an1', ][shall ][stand]closed. However, there [sha-11 ][be ][no ][order ][as to ][costs] Sd/.B.S.CHIRANEVIJOINT REGIRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To1The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad ['A' ]Bench, Hyderabad1The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad ['A' ]Bench, Hyderabad2The Commissioner of lncome Tax -1, Hyderabad. aThe Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Company circle -4(5),Hyderabad.Hyderabad. 4One CC to Sri B.Narasimha Sarma, SC for lncome Tax, IOPUC]qOne CC to Sri Challa Gunaran.jan, Advocate 6Two CD Copies7One Spare Copy 7Ki.'$$'Ki.'$$' HIGH COURT DATED:1410912O22 JUDGMENTITTA.No.31 of 2003 DISMISSING THE ITTAWITHOUT COSTS.