Itta/442/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi v. Shri K.sudarshan Reddy

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANUI.T.T.A.No.442 of 2011 Date: 02-08-2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-VI,Hyderabad. … Appellant And Shri K. Sudarshan ReddyH.No.5-11-186, Naim Nagar,Hanamkonda, Warangal District. … Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A.No.442 of 2011 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal, dated 06-08-2010 inI.T.A.No.565/Hyd/10 in relation to assessment year 2004-05 and is sought to be admitted on the following suggestedquestions of law: i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the appellate Tribunal is justified in dismissingthe Revenue’s appeal arising out of theconsequential assessment, in spite of the appellate order of the Tribunal arising out of revisionalproceedings U/s. 263 has not attained finality andthe Revenue’s appeal preferred against it is pendingconsideration before the Hon’ble Court? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in notdisposing of the appeal on merits, instead of on thetechnical ground? 2. It appears that the Commissioner of Income Tax, inexercise of the power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), called for the records andhad taken action. However, such action was set aside by thelearned Tribunal. The assessment order in sequel to the action ofthe order under Section 263 of the Act was questioned before theTribunal. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgmentand order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of assessment. Since the identical matter is pending before this High Court, thatcannot be a ground to keep this matter pending. The Tribunal hasdone right thing on the basis of the available status of the matter.Therefore, we do not find any element of law involved in this matter. 3. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, weclarify that this order will not prevent or prejudice the appellant, inthe event the appeal pending in this High Court in relation to theorder under Section 263 of the Act succeeds, to take fresh action inaccordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ Date: 02-08-2013 YCR _________________ K.C.BHANU, J