Itta/71/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Iii, Hyderabad v. M/S. Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd

[ [32es ]] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAI) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEIMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDOY l.T.T.A. NO: 71 OF 2006 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act,1961, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B'Hyderabad in ITA No.489iHl2000, for assessment year 1998-99 daled 2111212004preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals-ll),Hyderabad, Appeal No 13/JCSR4/ClT (A) ll/1999-2000 dated 3110312000 preferredagainst the Order of the Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax (Assts) Spl. Range,Hyderabad PAN/GlR No.S-100/SR.4/ Hyderabad. Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax -lll, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND M/s. Srinivasa Hatcheries P\rt. Ltd.,3-5-823,3'd Floor, Hyderabad Business Centre,Hyderguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT For the Appellant : SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTFor the Respondent:SRl Y.RATNAKAR, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY I.T.T.A. No.71 of 2O06 JUDGMENTi eer the Hon'ble tlle Cluef Justice Lijjat BlLuyan) Heard Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel,Income Tax Department lor the appellant and Mr. Y.Ratnakar,learned counsel for the respondent 2. This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue asthe appellant under Section 260A of the Income l'ax Act, 196i(briefly referred to hereinafter as the Act), assailing thelegality and validity of the order dated 2l .12.2004 passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B',Hyderabad (Tribunal)1nI.T.A.No.4B9lHyd/2000 for theassessment year 1998-99. 3. In the appeal, the following questions have beenproposed as substantial questions ol law: " 1 . On the facts and in the circumstances of the casewhen the Assessing Oflicer disallowed the deductionclairned by tJ:e assessee u/s. 80 IA of I.T. Act videwhen the Assessing Oflicer disallowed the deductionclairned by tJ:e assessee u/s. 80 IA of I.T. Act vide intimation u/s.1a3(1)(a) of I.T. Act relying on the decisionof the Supreme Court reported in 237 ITR page 134,whcther thc finding of the Appellate Authority confirmedby the ITAT upholding the said deduction claimed by theassessee based on an earlier contra decision of this Courtreported in 174 ITR page 231 is sustainable in law? 2. When the law is settled by the Supreme Court inregard to claim for deduction u/s. 80 IA of the Act vide itsjudgment reported in 237 ITR page 134 which waspronounced subsequent to fi1ing of return but beforeprocessing of return by the Assessing Of{icer u/s. 143 ofI.T. Act whether the hndings of the Tribunal andAppellatc Authority relying on earlier contra judgment ofthis Court reported in 174 ITR page 231 are sustainablein law? 3. Whether the respondent assessee is entitied toclaim deduction as claimed in his return of income as perSec. 80 IA of the Act in view of the law laid down by theSupreme Court reported in 237 ITR page 134?" 4. On 15.02.2006, the appea-l was admitted. 5. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant fairlysubmits that the disputed tax would be below Rs.50 lakhs. 6. In the hearing today, we have perused theassessment order dated 31.03.2OO0. We find therefrom thatthe taxable income of the respondent was assessed at Rs.6,51,42,364.00 and the [ta-x ][to ][be ][paid ][was quantified ][at]Rs.28,51,426.00. 3. Whether the respondent assessee is entitied toclaim deduction as claimed in his return of income as perSec. 80 IA of the Act in view of the law laid down by theSupreme Court reported in 237 ITR page 134?" 4. On 15.02.2006, the appea-l was admitted. 5. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant fairlysubmits that the disputed tax would be below Rs.50 lakhs. 6. In the hearing today, we have perused theassessment order dated 31.03.2OO0. We find therefrom thatthe taxable income of the respondent was assessed at Rs.6,51,42,364.00 and the [ta-x ][to ][be ][paid ][was quantified ][at]Rs.28,51,426.00. 7. Central Board of Direct [Taxes ][(CBDT) ][has ][issued]Circular No.17 of 2O19, [dated 08.08.2019, ][amending ][the]previous Circular No.3 of 2018, dated [11.07.2018, ][by further]enhancing the monetary [iimits ][lor ][filing ][appeals ][by ][the]Income Tax Department [before ][the ][Income ][Ta-x Appellate]Tribunals, High Courts and [Supreme ][Court ][as a ][measure ][for]reducing litigation. In [paragraph ][2 ][of ][the ][said ][circular ][rn'e]find that the monetary [iimit ][fixed ][for ][filing an ][appeal ][before]the High Court is Rs. [1.00 crore.] 8. In the instant aPPeal, [tax ]effectRs.28,51,426.00, [which is well ][below ][the ][monetary ][limit'] g . Therefore, the appeal filed [by ][the ][Department ][is]dismissed in terms [of the ][aforesaid ][Circular ][No'17 of ][2019,]dated 08.O8.2O19. [However, ][if ][the ][appeal ][comes ][within ][the]under [paragraph ][10 ][of ][Circular No'3 ][of ][207A, ][it]exception would be open to the [Income ][Tax Department ][to ][seek revival]of the appeal.dismissed in terms [of the ][aforesaid ][Circular ][No'17 of ][2019,]dated 08.O8.2O19. [However, ][if ][the ][appeal ][comes ][within ][the]under [paragraph ][10 ][of ][Circular No'3 ][of ][207A, ][it]exception would be open to the [Income ][Tax Department ][to ][seek revival]of the appeal. To Kj i0. Miscellancous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Hou,ever, there shail be no order as to costs. Sd/.K.SRINIVASAoJOINT REGISRARSECTION OFFICER //IRUE COPY// 1 . The lncome Tax Aooe ate Tribunal,_ Hyderabad Bench ,8, 2 Hyderabad.The Commissioner o[ lncome Tax (Appeals.ll), 4. 3. one rhe Joint commissioner cc to sriJ.V.prasad, or sc-iorir6"p"J,i,iJrii6puclrn.orn" iII]i;;i;i Hyderabad.i#;s", Hyderabad.6. I 9n" [CC to ][Sri ][y ][Ratnakar. ][Advocate ]tOpUCl [- '.-']Two CD Copies7. One Spare Copy2 Hyderabad.The Commissioner o[ lncome Tax (Appeals.ll), 4. 3. one rhe Joint commissioner cc to sriJ.V.prasad, or sc-iorir6"p"J,i,iJrii6puclrn.orn" iII]i;;i;i Hyderabad.i#;s", Hyderabad.6. I 9n" [CC to ][Sri ][y ][Ratnakar. ][Advocate ]tOpUCl [- '.-']Two CD Copies7. One Spare Copy HIGH COURTDATED:0211112022 JUDGMENTITTA.No.71 of 2006 DISMISSING THE ITTA, I -==>-Iq16 t{ii'l [?lfl?]f\$>r.--