Iv. [\I(H,:Ther ]The Order Of The Income Tax Appellatetribunal Is Perverse Insofar As It Omined To Consider Therelevant Material ,.Rt , Computation O[ Profits I v. \X4Ether T}Le Order Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunalis Pewt'rse A]So For The Reason That It Omitted To Considerthe Re,Evant [Judicial ]Decisions Cited In Regard

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY INCOME TAx TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 163 OF 2005 Appeal under section 260A of lncome Tax Act 1961 aggrieved by theorder of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Beach, Hyderabad,dated 08-04-2005 in ITA No.26ZHydl99 [(Assessment ][year ]1990-91) [preferred]against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) lll Hyderabaddated 12-01-1999 in Appeal No.288/TrlDC.SR.1/ClT(A)lll98/99 [preferred ]againstthe order of the deputy commissioner of lncome Tax, [(Assts) ]Special Range-|,Hyderabad dated 31-03-1997 in PAN/GIR No. P-2. Between: Progreesive Constructions Limited, Representedby K. Bhaskara Rao,Managing Director 7th Floor, ["Raghava" ]North Block,R.R. Towers, C.A. Lane,Abids, HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT AND Jt. Commissioner of income tax, Jt. Commissioner of lncome Tax SpecialRange - 3, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant : SRI Counsel for the Respondents: J [PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX)]The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEFJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDYI.T.T.A.No. 163 of 2005 IUDGMEIYT, [rl'er ][rtt ] [toihL ][rtu ][t.ht ]lu,n.t [t ][jlat ][Bhnatl] Fleard Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, leamed counsel for theappellant-assessee and Mr. J.V.Pnsad, leamed Standing Counsel,Income Tax Depanment fbr the respondent-revenue. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly ['the ]Act' hereinafter) has been prefened by theassessee against the order darcd 30.12.2004 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A, Hlderabad(Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.262/Hyd/1999 for the assessment )€ar1990-9t. 3. On 29.08.2005, the appeal was admitted on the following five'questions of law': i. [tVhether ]changc in method of computation ofincome wouk'l [jr,stify ]the conclusion that income escapedassessment u/ s.147 of the Income Tax Act ? ii. Whether there is any changc bctween the earlierprovisions of Section 147 of Incomc Tax Act and the newprovisions o[ that Section substitutecl with effect from ,) 01.04.1989 in regard to the scope of words'reason tobelieve' appearing in the section ? iii. \fltr':ther the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal isjustified in law in disallowing the personnel,adminis -rative and fhancial expenditure relating to thesub-contracts allowed in the or(inal assessment [?] iv. [\I(h,:ther ]the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal is perverse insofar as it omined to consider therelevant material ,.rt , computation o[ profits in sub-contrac, worlss ? v. \X4ether t}le order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunalis pewt'rse a]so for the reason that it omitted to considerthe re,evant [judicial ]decisions cited in regard tointerpretation of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act ? 4. Assessee had filed original retum of inconre on 31.12.1990declaring incorre of Rs.74,93,200.00. fusessment ordcr \ras passedby the assessing officer on 10.03.1993 under Section 1a3(,1) of theAct determinirrg the income of the assessee ar Rs.1,09.12,410.00. 5. Subscqu,:ntly the aforesaid assessment was reopened underSection 147 ol the Act by issue of notice dated 31.01.1997 underSection 148 of the Act. iv. [\I(h,:ther ]the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal is perverse insofar as it omined to consider therelevant material ,.rt , computation o[ profits in sub-contrac, worlss ? v. \X4ether t}le order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunalis pewt'rse a]so for the reason that it omitted to considerthe re,evant [judicial ]decisions cited in regard tointerpretation of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act ? 4. Assessee had filed original retum of inconre on 31.12.1990declaring incorre of Rs.74,93,200.00. fusessment ordcr \ras passedby the assessing officer on 10.03.1993 under Section 1a3(,1) of theAct determinirrg the income of the assessee ar Rs.1,09.12,410.00. 5. Subscqu,:ntly the aforesaid assessment was reopened underSection 147 ol the Act by issue of notice dated 31.01.1997 underSection 148 of the Act. 6During the reassessment proceedings, assessing officer notedthat in the original assessment proceedings, he had not talcn intoaccount certain items of receips, which should not have beentreated as contract income being in the nature of other income notthat in the original assessment proceedings, he had not talcn intoaccount certain items of receips, which should not have beentreated as contract income being in the nature of other income notrelatable to the contract income. Therefore, those receips wereadded to the incorne of the assessee. Assessing officer funherfound that assessee had claimed investment allowance ofRs.45,62227.00, r'hich was allowed in the original assessmentorder. It was noticed that Supreme C-oun in CIT v. N.C.BuddhaRaial held that in the case of contractors, investment allowancecould not be allowed since contractors cannot be construed to beengaged in the business of manufacturing or production of aniclesorthings. Therefore, the investment allowance of Rs.45,62,227.@eadier allowed was disallowed. Additionally, assessing officer madedisallowance under Section 4lB ol' the Act, depreciation onexcavator and depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide theassessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3)read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computedt zol trn ltzRs.45,62227.00, r'hich was allowed in the original assessmentorder. It was noticed that Supreme C-oun in CIT v. N.C.BuddhaRaial held that in the case of contractors, investment allowancecould not be allowed since contractors cannot be construed to beengaged in the business of manufacturing or production of aniclesorthings. Therefore, the investment allowance of Rs.45,62,227.@eadier allowed was disallowed. Additionally, assessing officer madedisallowance under Section 4lB ol' the Act, depreciation onexcavator and depreciation on tmc[s. Thereafter, uide theassessmenr order dated 31.03.1997 passed under Section 143(3)read with Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computedt zol trn ltz the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever,after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, theamount payabl,: bythe assessee was quantified at Rs.95,690.00. 7. Against rhe aforesaid order of assessment, assessee preferredappeal before r he Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By theappellate orde dated 12.01.1999, the appeal was partly allowed.lWhile granting ceftain relief to the assessee, first appellate authorityhowever, held that once the assessment is reopened, it is open tothe assessing r,fficer to cvcn rc-cvaluate the material available onrc,co rd and red,:termine the income accordingly. 8 Assessee preferred funher appeal before the Tribtrnal. Inground No.3 of the appeal, assessee contended that esscssingotTicer could not change the basis of original assessmenr bychanging his opinion on thesameissue, u,hich was carlie rconsidered an.l decided in the original assessment pro,-:cedings,Cirotrnd No.4 pertains to additions rnade by the :rssessing officcron account ol :ommission earned on sub-contract and hirc charges\ as other incon-.,e. 8 Assessee preferred funher appeal before the Tribtrnal. Inground No.3 of the appeal, assessee contended that esscssingotTicer could not change the basis of original assessmenr bychanging his opinion on thesameissue, u,hich was carlie rconsidered an.l decided in the original assessment pro,-:cedings,Cirotrnd No.4 pertains to additions rnade by the :rssessing officcron account ol :ommission earned on sub-contract and hirc charges\ as other incon-.,e. 9. Insofar ground No.3 is concemed, Tribunal found thatassess;ng officer had not changed his opinion on issues which werealready considered and decidedm the originalassessmentpNet tumover of assessee continued to beRs.6,36,16,441.00 and income thereon continued to be assessed@ [l5o/o ][both ][in ][the ][original ][assessment ][order ][as ][well ]as in thereassessment order. 10. Regarding ground No.4, Tribunal norcd that assessee had notled any evidence to show that the hire charges on plant &machinery and rent received from house propeny should beconsidered as contract receips from its own contracts and only apercentage of the same should be brought to tax. Tribr.rnal lurthernoted that the entire algument advanced by the assessee waswhether the assessing officer could bring to tax other income whilemaking reassessment; and that assessec had not disputed validityofthe reqssessment proceedings. II. Accordin; tc the assessee in the reassessment proceedings,the assessing oificer should only have disallowed the investmentallowance whic r was earlier allowed by following the decision ofthe Supremc C rurt in N.C.Budharaia (1 supra) and not broughtto tax as ['other ]nconrc'. 12. Such a c,)ntention of the assessee was not acceprcd by theTribunal. ['frilrunal ]took the view that once an assessment isreopened,, assessing officer can assess or reassess any other incomechargeable to t;rx which lrad escaped assessment and u'hich comesto the notice o1 the assessing officer subsequendy. 1 l. Before r s, leamed counsel for the assessee strenuor.slyargued that it ,s not open to the assessing officer to make ireshadditions or de ete disallowances earlier granted on mere change olopinion. Reas.essment proceedings cannot be used to review theoriginal assess nen[ proceedings. In this connection, leanrecl,lc<,unse I has pla :ed reliance on the following decisions: Jindal [Ph, ][rtofilnrs ][Lirnitcd ][v. ] CIT v. Kc vinator of India Ltdr.CIT v. Kc vinator of India Ltdr. l.I{ I'f R 170 = l99r {6) DRJ CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltda. Ritu Investments Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Taxs 14. On the other hand leamed counsel for the respondenrsubmits that assessee (appellant) has not challenged or questionedreopening of assessment. Flr"i.g accepted reopening ofassessment, it is not open to the assessee to quesrion the additionsmade by the assessing officer on the ground that it amounted tomerechange of opinion or reviewing earlier original assessmentorder. AII the decisions cited by leamed counsel fbr the assesseepenain to challenge to reopening of assessment and it uas in thatcontext that the [judgments ]were delivered. F{e has ref'erred to andrelied upon a decision of the Supreme C-oun in CIT r,. SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd6. In this connectiorr, lre has referredto decision of the Supreme Court in VJagan Mohan Rao r,. CITTwhich has since been reiterated by the Suprcme C-oun in CIT v.Srrn Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (6 supra). I 1z;o [trn ][1,2) ][(Der.xFB)]t zorolzy scc zz-r 5 z0r0 scc o,,ti.,. ocl 40?o = (m12) 345 ITR 214u roozl+; scc -to:= 198 ITR 297' [z5 ][mn ]izj' [z5 ][mn ]izj 15. Submissior rs made by leamed counsel for the panies havereceived the due :onsideratiirn of the C-oun. I 1z;o [trn ][1,2) ][(Der.xFB)]t zorolzy scc zz-r 5 z0r0 scc o,,ti.,. ocl 40?o = (m12) 345 ITR 214u roozl+; scc -to:= 198 ITR 297' [z5 ][mn ]izj' [z5 ][mn ]izj 15. Submissior rs made by leamed counsel for the panies havereceived the due :onsideratiirn of the C-oun. L6. Though a number of questions had been framed by thisC-ourt at the tinre of admission of the appeal, the basic questionri,hich ansesl.c r consideration in this appeallswhether uponreopening o[ as;essment, assessing officer should confine only tothe income charseable to tax which had escaped assessment or is itopen to hirrr t,, bring to rax those items of income which hades,:apcd asscssr,)ent or which had suffered under assessment otherth,rn thosc iterr, [/items ]which led to reopening of assessment ? 17. fu riglrtl,'pointed out by leamed coursel for the respondent-revenuc. all thr' decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for theappellant-asses ;ec' re late ro scope and power of the assessing officers hilc rcopcnin 1 the assessment. In that context, it was held by thecouns that rssessing officer has the power to reopen theassessnlent or t1, if he h,rs reason to believe that income hade scaped asses: ment based on tangible material. Mere change of opinion does not empower the assessing officer to reopenassessment. A concluded assessment cannot be reviewed orrevised in the garb of reassessment.assessment. A concluded assessment cannot be reviewed orrevised in the garb of reassessment. 18. There can be no dispute to the proposition of lawpropounded in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by learnedcounsel for the appellant.propounded in the aforesaid decisions relied upon by learnedcounsel for the appellant. 19. However, the moot question as advened to above wasexamined by the Supreme C-ourt in VJagan Mohan Rao v. CIT(7 supra) which deak urith reassessment under Section 14 of theIndian Income Tax Act, 1922. In that case, it was held that once anassessment is reopened, the previous under-assessment is set asideand the whole assessment proceeding starts afresh. When validproceedings are stafted afresh, income tax officer had not only thejurisdiction but it was his duryto levytax on the entire income thathad escaped assessment during that assessment year. It was held asunde n Section 14 in rcrms states that once the Income-axOfficer decides to reopen the assessment, he could do soq.ithin the period prescribed by serving on the penon liable to \ pay tax, a ft,tice conuining all or any of the requirementswhich may be included in a notice under Section 22Q) and mayproceed to a:.sess or leassess such income, profis or gains. Itis, therefore. manifest that once assessment is reopened byissuing a nr tice under Subsection (2) of Section 22 theprevious rm der-assessment is set aside and the wholeassessment proceedings staft afresh. !(/hen once validproceedings are staned under Section i4(0(b) the Income-taxOfficer had not only the lurisdiction but it was his duty to levytax on the rntir incorne that had escaped assessment duringthat 1ear. 20- Subserltre rtly, it was noticed that the aforesaid decision inV.Jagan Mol,ar.r Rao v. CIT (Z supra) Ied to divergentinterpretations by various l{eh Coufts- one set of Flgh Courtstook tire vicu [,hat ]in under Section 147 of the Act, theProcccdings erldre asscssnr,'nt is reope ned. The original assessmenf is wiped offand therefore. rhe asscssee can put forward all pleas even if rejecteddurine the or,ginal proceedings; on the other hand, there wereother F[g]r [( ]buns u4rich took the view that reassessment wasconfined on[,,'to the escaped assessment and that an assessee canput forward 1 leas only in rtspecr rhereof. 2L. In view of such conflicting inteqpretations Supreme C-oun inCIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd (6 supra) analped theabove issue in the following rrulnnen 20- Subserltre rtly, it was noticed that the aforesaid decision inV.Jagan Mol,ar.r Rao v. CIT (Z supra) Ied to divergentinterpretations by various l{eh Coufts- one set of Flgh Courtstook tire vicu [,hat ]in under Section 147 of the Act, theProcccdings erldre asscssnr,'nt is reope ned. The original assessmenf is wiped offand therefore. rhe asscssee can put forward all pleas even if rejecteddurine the or,ginal proceedings; on the other hand, there wereother F[g]r [( ]buns u4rich took the view that reassessment wasconfined on[,,'to the escaped assessment and that an assessee canput forward 1 leas only in rtspecr rhereof. 2L. In view of such conflicting inteqpretations Supreme C-oun inCIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd (6 supra) analped theabove issue in the following rrulnnen The principle laid down bythis Coun inJaganmohanRao's case, therefore, is only to the extent that once anassessment is validly reopened by issuance of notice underSection 22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding toSection 148 of the Ac$, the previous under assessmenr isset aside and the ITO has the [jurisdiction ]and duryto levytax on the entire income fiat had escaped assessmenrduring the previous par. I(lhat is set aside is, thus, only theprevious underassessment and not the original assessmentproceedings. An onCer made in relation to the escapedtumover does not affect the operative force of the originalrssessment, particularly if it has acquired finaliry and theoriginal order retains both its chancter and identiry. It isonly in cases of [" ]underassessment" based on Causes [(a)]to (d) of Explrnation Q to Seoion l47,that the assessmentof tax due has to be recomputed on the entire taxableincome. The [judgment ]in Jaganmohan Rao's case,thertfore, cannot be read to imply as Iaying down that inthe reassessment proceedings validly initiated, the assesseecan see[< reopening of the [,*'hole ]assessment and claimcredir in respect of items finally concluded in the originalassessment. The assessee cannot claim recompilation of the \ income or redoing of an assessment and be allowed a claimr4rich he either failed to make or which was otherwiserejected ar the time of original assessment, which has sinceacquired finaliry Of course, in the reassessmentproceedings it is open to an assessee to show that theincome alleged to have escaped assessment has in truth andin fact nr't escaped assessrrrent but that the same had beenshown under some inappropriate head in the originalretum, but to read dre [judgment ]in Jaganmohan Rao'scase, as if laying dolvn that reassessment wipes out theoriginal assessmenr and that reassessment is not onlyconfine<' to "escaped assessment" or [*under ]assessment"but to -he entire assessment for the par and staft theassessm,:nt proceeding ,le noro givnrg right to an assessee tore-agitar e matten which he had lost during the originalassessn'ent proceeding, u,hich had acquired finaliry, is notonly er oneous brrt .rls,; against the phraseology of Section147 of rhe Act and the object of reassessment proceedings.Such . n interpretrrtion v,'ould be rcading that judgmenttotally out of context in rvhich the questions arose fordecisi n h that case. [t is neither desirable nor permissibleto picli out ir word or.r sentence fricm the judgment of thisC-out divorced fronr the conrext of the question underconsirleration and tre.rt it to be the complete 'law' declaredb1'thrs C,ourt. The juden-rent must be read as a whole andthe olrsen.rtions frrrnr the iudgment have ro be consideredin th, light oi rhe qr.restions which werr beforc this Coun. J A decision of tht Coun takes its colour from the questionsinvolved in the case in which it is rendered and whileapplyrng the decision to a later case, rhe courrs musrcarefully try to ascertain the true princrple laid down by thedecision of this Coun and not to pick out words orsentences from the [judgment, ]divorced from tle context ofthe questions under consideration by this Court, to supporttheir reasonings. J A decision of tht Coun takes its colour from the questionsinvolved in the case in which it is rendered and whileapplyrng the decision to a later case, rhe courrs musrcarefully try to ascertain the true princrple laid down by thedecision of this Coun and not to pick out words orsentences from the [judgment, ]divorced from tle context ofthe questions under consideration by this Court, to supporttheir reasonings. 22. Thereafteq the Supreme Court held that in proceedingsunder Section 147 of the Act, the income tax officer may bring tocharge items of income which had escaped assessnrcnt other thanor in addition to those item or items which had led to issuance ofnotice under Section 148. It has been clarified that it is only theunder-assess ment which is set aside and not the entire assessmentwhere reassessment proceedings are initiated, An assessee cannotresist validly initiated reassessment proceedings merely by showingthat other income u4rich had been assessed originallywas too highafigure. Clainx which have been disallowed in the originalassessment proceedhgs cannot be permitted to be agitated by theassessee orl rcassessment.Object and pulpose of proceedingsunder Section 147 of the Act is for the benefit of the revenue and ) not an assessee.An assessee cannot be permitted to conven thereassessment pro,:eedings as his appeal or revision in disguise.Supreme Courc fi nher clarified that even in cases where the claimsof the assessee Juring the course of reassessment proceedingsrelating to the es:aped assessment are accepted, still allowance ofsuch claims has ;o be limited to the extent to w'l'rich they reduceincr>me to that rriginally assessed. Income for the purposes ofreassessment ca rnot be reduced beyond the income originallyassessed. In thi ; regard, Suprerne Coun held as follows: Although, Section 147 is pan of a taxing statute, itimposes no charge on the subiect but deals nrerely with themachinery <,f assessment anci in intelpreting a provision of thatkind, the r,rle is that construction should be prcfened r+'hichmakes the machinery workrble. Since, the proceedings underSection 14i' of the Act arc for the benefit of the Revenue andnot an assessee and arc aimed at gamering the 'esc:rped income'of an asss,see, the same cannot be allowed to be conveted x'revisional' or 'review' pr-oceedings at the instance of theassessee, tlrereby making thc r-nachinery unworkrble. A. a result of the .rforesaid discussion, ne find that inproceedinr;s under Section 147 of the Act, the Income Ta-xOfficer n ray bring to charge iterrs of income u,hich hadescaped a isessmenr other-rhen or in addirion to that item or A. a result of the .rforesaid discussion, ne find that inproceedinr;s under Section 147 of the Act, the Income Ta-xOfficer n ray bring to charge iterrs of income u,hich hadescaped a isessmenr other-rhen or in addirion to that item or tems which have led to the issuance of notice underSection 148 and where re-assessment is made underSection 147 in respect of inconre which has escaped tax, theIncome Tax Officer's [jurisdiction ]is confined to only suchincome which has escaped tax or has been under-assessed anddoes not etend to revising, reopening or reconsi&ring t}rewhole assessment or permining the assessee to reagitatequestions w*rich had been decided in the original assessmertproceedings. It is only the under-assessment which is set asideand not the entire assessment when rexsessrnent proceedingsare initiated. The Income Tax Officer cannot male an order ofreassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessmentin respect of matters which are not the subject matter ofproceedings under Section 147. An assessee cannot resistvalidly initiated reassessment proceedings u.nder this Sectionmerely by showing that other income which had been assesseeoriginally was at too high a figure except in cases under Section152Q). \\e rvords "such income" in Section 147 cleaAyreferred to the income which is chaqgeable rc tax but has"escaped assessment" and the Income Tax Officen'jurisdiction under the Section is conf ined only to such incomewhich has escaped assessnlent. It does not etend toreconsidering genenlly the concluded earlier assessment.Claims which have been disallow,ed in the original assessmentproceeding cannot be pennitted to be re-agitated on theassessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain incomeu4rich had cscaped assessment because the controversy on reassessmeff is confined to nxrtters which are relevant only inrespect of the income which had not been brrcught to taxduring the r oune of the originat assessment. A matter notagitated in tlre concluded original assessment proceedings alsocannot be permimed to be agitated in the reassessmentproceedings unless relatable to the item sought to be axed as'escaped inc.>me'. Indeed, in the reassessment proceedings forbringing to rax iterns which had escaped assessment, it wouldbe open to .n assessee to put forward claims for deduction ofany expendir ure in respect of that incorne or the non-mxabilityof the itenrs at all Keeping in view the object and pupose ofthe proceedings underSection 147 ofrhe Act which are forthebenefit of dre Revenue and not an assessee, an assessee cannotbe permitte,l to convert the reassessment proceedings as hisappeal or r,:vision, in disguise, and seek relief in respect ofitems eadie,' re.iected or claim relief in respect of items notclaimed in tlrc orfuinal assessment proceedings, unless relatableto 'escaped ncome', and reagiute the concluded mattcn. E venin cases wh,:re the claims of the assessee during the cour:e ofreassessfircrt proceedings relating to the escaped assessnlentare accepte J, still the allowance of such claims has to belimited to trre extent to u,hich they reduce the income to thatoriginally a.sessed. The income for purposcs o[ ['reassessnrent']cannot be r,:duced beyond the income originally assessed. 23. Thar being the position, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in rejecdng the appeal of the assessee. The questionsframed cannor be said to be substantial questions of law arising outof the orrder of the Tribunal dated 30.12.2@4 inI.T.LNo.262 / Ht d/ lg9 2 for the assess menr 1ear l9g G9 l. 24. \fle do not find any merit in rhe appeal. Appeal isaccordinglydismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneou petitions, pending if any, standdismissed. Sd/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOTNIREGTSTRARqDSECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/I ONE FAIR COPY TO THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN(FOR HIS LORDSHIPS KIND PERUASAL) ONE FAIR COPY TO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.EHASKAR REDDY(FOR HIS LORDSHIPS KIND PERUASAL) To, 'I . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Beanch, Hyderabad 23. Thar being the position, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in rejecdng the appeal of the assessee. The questionsframed cannor be said to be substantial questions of law arising outof the orrder of the Tribunal dated 30.12.2@4 inI.T.LNo.262 / Ht d/ lg9 2 for the assess menr 1ear l9g G9 l. 24. \fle do not find any merit in rhe appeal. Appeal isaccordinglydismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneou petitions, pending if any, standdismissed. Sd/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOTNIREGTSTRARqDSECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/I ONE FAIR COPY TO THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN(FOR HIS LORDSHIPS KIND PERUASAL) ONE FAIR COPY TO THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.EHASKAR REDDY(FOR HIS LORDSHIPS KIND PERUASAL) To, 'I . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Beanch, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) lll, Hyderabad.lll, Hyderabad.Hyderabad. The Commissioner of lncome Tax lncome Tax (Appeals) lll, Hyderabad.lll, Hyderabad.Hyderabad.3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Assts) Special Range-|,Hyderabad. Hyderabad.4. l, L.R. Copies.5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and CompanyAffairs, New Delhi,4. l, L.R. Copies.5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and CompanyAffairs, New Delhi, 6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High CourtBuildings, Hyderabad.Buildings, Hyderabad. 7. One CC to SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN, Advocate 8. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) IOPUC]9. Two CD CopiesBSK q II HIGH COURT DATED:21 10912022 ORDER l.T.T.A.No.163 of 2005 DISMISSING T}{E ITTAWITHOUT COSTS @qalJL- (\\\iELrl,aA\*\\"tiJir'.$)=8'.-t