Under The Income Tax Act 1961? v. Deputy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.458 OF 2014 DATED: 24.07.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s.Green Fire Agri Commodities Limited … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.458of2014 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orderof the learned Tribunal dated 27.11.2013 passed inI.T.A.No.516/Hyderabad/2013 in relation to the assessmentyear 2006-07 on the following suggested questions of law. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct inlaw in setting aside the order passed by thejurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax underSection 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 when thesubject assessment order was erroneous andprejudicial to the interest of the Revenue andliable to be revised under Section 263 of the Act? 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case,whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct inlaw in holding that the subject assessment orderwas not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenuenor erroneous as the Export proceeds have beenbrought into India within the extended timestipulated by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) relyingon the circular issued by the Reserve Bank ofIndia (RBI) under Foreign Exchange ManagementAct (FEMA Act) when there is no such provision In this case, the Tribunal on fact found that theexercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income taxAct, 1961 by the Commissioner was not legally undertakenand the Assessing Officer has followed the correct positionof law. After appreciation of fact, the Tribunal also found thatthe issue was covered by the decision of BangaloreTribunal in the case of HCL EAI Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax[[1]]and the samesquarelyapplies to this case. Therefore, the element of prejudice tothe interest of the Revenue is missing. Accordingly, theorder of the Commissioner was set aside. We are of the view that the rule of consistency and thelegal principles have been followed by the Tribunal. It is notthe case before us that the decision of the BangaloreTribunal has been upset as yet. We therefore dismiss this appeal having found noelement of law involved in this appeal. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 24[th] JULY, 2014. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni [1](2013) 35 taxmann.com 146