The Asst. Commissioner Of Lncome Tax, Circle 2[2], Hyderabad v. A. Siva Kartikeya

I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 320 OF 2005 Appeal Under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against theorder dated 26-04-2005 in ITA No.563 / HYD 12001 ( A.Y. 1997-98) on the file ofthe lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B , Hyderabad preferredagainst the order dated 22-06-2001 in ITA Nos. 25 & 89 & 88 I DC .2 (2) I CIT(A) -ll, 2000- 2001 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals ) llHyderabad preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner oflncome Tax , Circle -2 (21, Hyderabad dated 29-03-2000 in PAN / GIR No. R -3081 AC .2 (21 Between: M/S.R.S.Ranga Das, Contractors, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The Asst. Commissioner of lncome tax, Circle 2[2], Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI J.V. PRASAD(sc FoR rNcoME TAX DEPT) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY I.T.T.A.No.32O of 2OO5 JUDGMENTi [(Per ]the Hon'bte tte Chief Justice uljat Bhuyan) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, iearned counselfor the appellant and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned StandingCounsel for Income tax Department appearing for therespondent 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee asthe appellant under Section 2604' of the Income TaxAct, 196 1 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) assailing theorder dated 26.04.2005 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad(Tribunal),lnI.T.A.No.563lHydl2OOL for theassessment year 1997 -98. II ,l 3. Though the [aPPeal][ was][ admitted ][by ][the ][order]dated 13. L2.2O05, substantial [questions ][of ][law ][were]not framed. 4. From the appeal memo we find that appellant [has]proposed the following questions as substantialquestions of law: a) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal is right insustaining the reopening of assessment underSection 147 of the Act when entire primary andnecessary facts were disclosed at the time of theoriginal assessment? b) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal is justifiedin holding that the interest earned on the amountdeposited in the bank which is received as aninterim measure on the directions of the HighCourt is an income when the arbitration awarditself is in dispute and pending adjudication beforethe High court? I 5. From the above, it is seen that as per the first Iquestion, appellant has challenged reopening of 4. From the appeal memo we find that appellant [has]proposed the following questions as substantialquestions of law: a) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal is right insustaining the reopening of assessment underSection 147 of the Act when entire primary andnecessary facts were disclosed at the time of theoriginal assessment? b) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal is justifiedin holding that the interest earned on the amountdeposited in the bank which is received as aninterim measure on the directions of the HighCourt is an income when the arbitration awarditself is in dispute and pending adjudication beforethe High court? I 5. From the above, it is seen that as per the first Iquestion, appellant has challenged reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. The secondquestion pertains to u,hether Tribunal was justified intreating the interest earned on the amount depositedin the bank received as interim award as an income,when the arbitration au,ard is pending adjudication.6. Tribunal in the order dated 26.04.2005 followedits earlier decision rendered on 29.07.2002 in theappeals for the assessment years 1995-96 and1996-97 in the case of the assessee itself. Against theaforesaid order dated 29.07.2OO2, assessee preferredappeal before this Court under Section 260A of theAct, being LT.T.A.No.168 of 20O3. This Court by theorder dated 02.O9.2014 held t1at opening ofassessment was valid and that interest accrued onin the bank received as interim award as an income,when the arbitration au,ard is pending adjudication.6. Tribunal in the order dated 26.04.2005 followedits earlier decision rendered on 29.07.2002 in theappeals for the assessment years 1995-96 and1996-97 in the case of the assessee itself. Against theaforesaid order dated 29.07.2OO2, assessee preferredappeal before this Court under Section 260A of theAct, being LT.T.A.No.168 of 20O3. This Court by theorder dated 02.O9.2014 held t1at opening ofassessment was valid and that interest accrued oninterim award deposited in bank was incomechargeable to tax.chargeable to tax. 7. Following the [above decision, ][the ][questions]proposed are answered [against ][the ][assessee ][and ][in]favour of the [revenue.] 8The present appeal is [accordingly ][dismissed.]Miscellaneous applications [pending, ][if ][any, ][shall]stand closed. However, there [shall ][be ][no ][order as ][to]costs. Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPYi/qp/:-SECTION OFFICER To,'1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B, Hyderabad2. The Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) Il Hyderabad3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -2 (2), Hyderabad4. One CC to Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Advocate (OPUC)5. One CC to Sri J.V. Prasad SC for INCOME TAX DEPT 6. Two CD CopiesPp bs( \--'--l- HIGH COURT DATED:21 10912022 _-,=.-1__"-..,.,,--,)?*.=3".aLJ::\q$l: JUDGMENT ITTA.No.320 of 2005 DISMISSING THE APPEAL (------Tz:( [o'\zl]sLa