Itta/398/2013 Of Sri Potla Nishanth v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
High Court
10 Sep 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/398/2013 Of Sri Potla Nishanth v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
10 Sep 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itta/398/2013 Of Sri Potla Nishanth v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.
Issue: It appears, the learned Tribunal has so to say remanded thematter for determination of the nature of the land, namely, whether the land is an agricultural land or not without giving a chance ofhearing to the appellant.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly disposed of. _________________ K.J.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUI.T.T.A.No.398 of 2013
Date:10-09-2013
Between:
Sri Potla NishanthRep. by P. Nageswara Rao--# 113119, Nehru Nagar,Khammam.
and
……. Appellant
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,-Central Circle4, Aayakar Bhavan,L.B. Stadium Road, Hyderabad.
……… Respondents
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUI.T.T.A.No.398 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
On identical grounds, we passed an order dated
05-09-2013 in I.T.T.A.No.394 of 2013. Therefore, we pass similarorder in this matter also as follows:
Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the Revenue,who is present in the Court, takes notice for the respondent.
We have heard Mr. K. Vasant Kumar, learned senior counselappearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for therespondent. We have gone through the impugned judgment andorder of the learned Tribunal.
It appears, the learned Tribunal has so to say remanded thematter for determination of the nature of the land, namely, whether
the land is an agricultural land or not without giving a chance ofhearing to the appellant. From the impugned judgment and order ofthe learned Tribunal, it does not appear that any such contentionwas raised by any of the parties or it was considered on thequestion of remand.
Under the circumstances, we keep that portion of the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal only, in abeyance andwe direct the learned Tribunal to hear the appellant on the questionof necessity of remand for determination of the nature of the land. After hearing the appellant, the learned Tribunal shall pass a freshorder either reversing or retaining earlier order. This exercise shallbe completed within a period of six weeks from the date ofproduction of this order.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
_________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________
K.C.BHANU, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.