Itta/69/2002 Of Shaik Kutubuddin v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
24 Sep 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/69/2002 Of Shaik Kutubuddin v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
24 Sep 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/69/2002 Of Shaik Kutubuddin v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Since no other ground has been taken, we therefore, dismiss theappeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.69 of 2002
DATED:24.9.2014
Between:Shaik Kutubuddin, Vetapalem,Prakasham.
And
… Appellant
The Commissioner of Income Tax,Guntur.
….Respondent
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A.No.69 of 2002
JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan JyotiSengupta)
This appeal was unnecessarily admitted on the previousoccasion. We are of the view that in this matter no question of law, letalone substantial question of law involved for the following reasons:
The Assessing Officer disbelieved the books of accounts. Assuch, the income was estimated and on that basis, the assessment wasfollowed. Even the assessment order was passed. Then the matter wastaken to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who deleted theaddition. The revenue then carried the matter in appeal before thelearned Tribunal. By the impugned judgment and order, the learnedTribunal found that the books of accounts are not free from defect. Assuch, the estimation of the income done by the Assessing Officer wasaccepted by the learned Tribunal. It is purely a question of fact and not aquestion of law.
Since no other ground has been taken, we therefore, dismiss theappeal.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shallalso stand dismissed. No costs.
__________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
24[th] September, 2014
pnb
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.