Sd/. B.s. Chiranjeevi ./ Joint Registrar v. True Copy

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENW SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HON'ABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: s oF 2009 lncome Tax Tribunar Appear Under section 2604 of ttre rncome Tax Act, 1961against the order of the rncome-Tax Appelate Trbunar, Hyderabad Bench , 8 ,Hyderabad, in ITA Nos. S06/Hyd/2003 andITA Nos.SMl Hydl 2003 forassessment Year 1988-Bg to 1991-92 dated30-05-2008preferred against ttreorder of the commissioner of rncome Tax, ( Appears ) Guntur (camp at Hyderabad)in Appeal Nos.0059/ Tr.c rr (A) GNT. No.04s4lcrr(A)- 1 o t2o1 s-1 6, dated:.r 0-02-20 16,preferred against the order of the rncome Tax officer, ward-g(2), HyderabadPAN/GIR No.AHGPR666BG, dated 2B-1 1 -201 1.Between: Shri Prabhudayal Agarwal, Secunderabad ...APPELLANT AND The lncometax Officer, Ward i0 (10) , Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counse! for the Appellant: SRl y. RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. p. SAPNA REDDY SC ON BEHALF OF SRI J.V. PRASAD, S.C. for lncome Tax Dept. The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJII.T.T.A.No.5 of 2OO9 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon'ble Sri Justtce P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr. Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the appellalt and Ms.P. Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearingon behalf of Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel forIncome Tax, for the sole respondent. 2. The present is an appeal liled by the appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the orderpassed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B', at Hyderabad in I.T.A.Nos.504 to 507/Hyd l2OO3 andLT.A.Nos.562 to 565/Hyd/2003, dated 30.o5.2oo8 (for short,'the impugned order).passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'B', at Hyderabad in I.T.A.Nos.504 to 507/Hyd l2OO3 andLT.A.Nos.562 to 565/Hyd/2003, dated 30.o5.2oo8 (for short,'the impugned order). 3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal partly atlowed theappeals preferred by the respondent, viz., I.T.A.Nos.504 to5O7 /Hyd/2OO3, and simultaneously dismissed the appealspreferred by the assessee, viz., LT.A.Nos.562, 564 and565/Hyd/2OO3, while partly allowing I.T.A.No.563lHydlC3a,uide order dated 3O.O5,2008. 4. On 27.07.2009, a Division [Bench ][of ][this ][Court ][admitted]the instant appeal on [the ][following ][substantial ][question ][of ][law,]vtz. , "Whether on the facts and [in ][the ][ciratmstances ][of ][tle]case, the omission to consider [mateial ][on record' ][submissions]canuassed., euidence [and ][the ][case lortts ][cited ][uthite ][disposing ][of]the appeal u-tould constitute [o ][mi.stoke ][apparent ]from [the ][record,]uesting [jurisdiction ][in ][the ][Income ][Tox Appellate ][Tribunal ][to ][re']call its ord.er und.er [Section ][254 ][(2) ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ?"]canuassed., euidence [and ][the ][case lortts ][cited ][uthite ][disposing ][of]the appeal u-tould constitute [o ][mi.stoke ][apparent ]from [the ][record,]uesting [jurisdiction ][in ][the ][Income ][Tox Appellate ][Tribunal ][to ][re']call its ord.er und.er [Section ][254 ][(2) ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ?"] 5. The challenge raised [by the appellant ][in ][the instant ][appeal]seems to be on [the ground ][that ][the appellate-Tribunal]primarily erroneously concluded [that ][the appellant started the ][business ][in]in 1988-99 [whereas ][there was ][no ][such ][material]computers available before [the ][Tribunal. ][Likewise, ][it ][was ][also contended ][by]the appellant that computation [of pro{its ][on ][sale ][of ][computers]by the respondent as [also ][by ][the Tribunal ][is ][erroneous ][and]arbitrary. Upon going through the going through the through the [[impugned ][order ][passed ][by ][the]][[order ][passed ][by ][the]][[passed ][by ][the]][[by ][the]][[the]] 5. The challenge raised [by the appellant ][in ][the instant ][appeal]seems to be on [the ground ][that ][the appellate-Tribunal]primarily erroneously concluded [that ][the appellant started the ][business ][in]in 1988-99 [whereas ][there was ][no ][such ][material]computers available before [the ][Tribunal. ][Likewise, ][it ][was ][also contended ][by]the appellant that computation [of pro{its ][on ][sale ][of ][computers]by the respondent as [also ][by ][the Tribunal ][is ][erroneous ][and]arbitrary. Upon going through the going through the through the [[impugned ][order ][passed ][by ][the]][[order ][passed ][by ][the]][[passed ][by ][the]][[by ][the]][[the]] 6. Upon going through the going through the through the [[impugned ][order ][passed ][by ][the]][[order ][passed ][by ][the]][[passed ][by ][the]][[by ][the]][[the]]Tribunal, what is apparently [evident ][is ][that ][the ][Tribuna'l ][had]considered these [very grounds ][which ][the ][appellant ][has ][raised]extensively in the Grounds [of ][Appeal, ][and ][the ][Tribunal ][has]decided these issues [giving specific reasons ][while dismissing ][the]appeals preferred by [the ][assessee ][and ][partly ][allowing ][the] appeals hled by the respondent. Therefore, the findings given bythe Tribunal appear to be finding on fact. Therefore, we are ofthe considered opinion that the question of law framed by thisCourt while admitting the appeal has to be answered in thenegative, holding that there was in fact no mistake apparent onrecord committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugnedorder. 7. Therefore, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.No costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed. Sd/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVI ./JOINT REGISTRARv. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To1. The lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench [,B ][, ]Hyderabad (withrecords, if any) 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax, ( Appeals ) Guntur CAMp at Hvderabad( Appeals ) Guntur CAMp at HvderabadAppeals ) Guntur CAMp at Hvderabad) Guntur CAMp at HvderabadGuntur CAMp at HvderabadCAMp at Hvderabadat HvderabadHvderabad[[-]] 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax, ( Appeals ) Guntur CAMp at Hvderabad( Appeals ) Guntur CAMp at HvderabadAppeals ) Guntur CAMp at Hvderabad) Guntur CAMp at HvderabadGuntur CAMp at HvderabadCAMp at Hvderabadat HvderabadHvderabadThe Commissioner of lncome Tax, ( Appeals ) Guntur CAMp at Hvderabad( Appeals ) Guntur CAMp at HvderabadAppeals ) Guntur CAMp at Hvderabad) Guntur CAMp at HvderabadGuntur CAMp at HvderabadCAMp at Hvderabadat HvderabadHvderabad3. The Assistant commissioner of tnidmb'Tax, circte_S 1tf1tf.to, Hvo'eii'oao [[-]] 4. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-10(10). Hvderabad 5. One CC to SRl. Y. RATNAKAR. Aavocaie tOpUCl tOpUCl6. One CC to SRt. J.V. PRASAD, S.C. for lT Eiepartmient 7. Two CD Copies kul\rP-VH I HIGH COURT DATED:2211112O23 JUDGMENTlTTA.No.5 of 2009 DISMISSING THE ITTAW1THOUT COSTS e#ffi', rtr [416]4or.)3 o [rEC ][2023 ]:t)*,-() Io(ts p.^J (-,'.