Case LawHigh Court › Itta/6/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Itta/6/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri Paladugu Ramakrishna

High Court 20 Mar 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/6/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri Paladugu Ramakrishna
Date of order
20 Mar 2015
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itta/6/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri Paladugu Ramakrishna, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Hence, we dismiss the appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.6 of 2015 DATED:20.03.2015 Between:The Commissioner of Income Tax,Vijayawada.And … Appellant Sri Paladugu Ramakrishna,Vijayawada. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.6 of 2015 Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted againstthe judgment and order dated 2.7.2010 of the learned Tribunal inrelation to the assessment year 2004-05, by which, the learnedTribunal has dismissed the proceedings initiated under Section263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We have heard the learned counsel for the Revenue andhave gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. It appears, when two views on reading of documents arepossible, the Tribunal has upheld one of such views. In this case,relying on the Supreme Court decisions, the learned Tribunal hasset aside the proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Act. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal has done correctlyso. As it is settled law, when two possible views are imagined in aparticular matter and if one of the views is taken by the AssessingOfficer, the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercisejurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. Pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. __________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 20[th] March, 2015 Pnb
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan