Itta/4/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iii v. M/S. Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.NO.4 OF 2015 DATED:26.2.2015 Between: The Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Hyderabad. … Appellant. And Sree Rayalaseema green Energy Limited, Aswathapuram,Pondipadu Village, Kurnool. … Respondent. THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.4 OF 2015 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan JyotiSengupta) By the impugned judgment and order dt.30.9.2009, twoappeals in relation to assessment years 1996-1997 to 2001-2002and from 01.04.2001 to 07.03.2002 (Block Period), and also inrelation to assessment year 2001-2002 have been disposed of bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’,Hyderabad. The present appeal is sought to be preferred andadmitted by the Revenue, against the impugned judgment relation tothe assessment of the block period, on the following suggestedquestions of law. 1.“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse?the case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal is correct in law, in setting asidethe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passedunder Section 263 of the Income Tax Act?”the case, the Tribunal is correct in law, in setting asidethe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passedunder Section 263 of the Income Tax Act?” We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gonethrough the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears,the learned Tribunal has set aside the action taken by theCommissioner of Income Tax, under Section 263 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Tribunal on fact found thatthe Assessing Officer has taken one possible view, which is legallyacceptable. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax in exerciseof the power under Section 263 of the Act wanted to substitute his own views. Based on this fact, the learned Tribunal came to aconclusion that this exercise of jurisdiction is not legally permissible. We find that settled position of law has been followed by the learnedTribunal on appreciation of fact and hence we do not want tosubstitute our own view. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no orderas to costs. _______________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _______________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 26.2.2015 BNR / GJ