Three-Judge Bench in the Telangana High Court dealt with an Income Tax Tribunal appeal. The court held that the Tribunal's finding was a fact-decision based on lack of substantial evidence, rendering it not justiciable under section 260A.
None. The appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[337e ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
t. .A.No:148 of 201
lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,8,, Hyderabad in ITA No.362/HYD12016, for assessment year 2O11-12 dated 30-082017 preterred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, lTA.No.0379/2014-15/lTO, Wd. 13(3yCtT(A)-4tHydt2O1S-16 dated 0911-2015 preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. ACUPP7201N dated 31-03-2014.
Between:
Hanmiya Naik Pemawath
...AppellanUAppellant
AND
lncome Tax Officer-Ward 13(3), Hyderabad
...RespondenURespondent
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH. SAMSON BABU
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, representi4g SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
I.T.T.A.No.148 of 2019
JUDGM ENT : Qte r Hon' bl e Sri .lusrice P. SAM KOS Hy)
Heard Ms.K.Mamata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
2
substantial evidence led by the assessee before the assessing officer or before two Appellate authorities and thus, we are of the considered opinion that the finding given by the Tribunal affirming the order passed by the Commissioner Appeal on the said issue becomes a finding of fact. Thus, it cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 260-4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as there does not seems to be any substantial question of law, much less a question of law made out by the appellant.
//TRUE COPY//
SdA B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR q
SECTION OFFICER
To,
kam \ >.
HIGH COURT
DATED:0211112023
91 AiE ()F )r
o
ts l$b z
!
\ $<br>1 l
d.)c
o
p.1 C
H + ct: :rr
JUDGMENT
ITTA.No.148 of 2019
THE APPEAL IS REJECTED
\ ,)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's finding lacks substantial evidence justifying review under Section 260-A.
Whether the Income Tax Tribunal rejected a claim for Rs. 32,00,000/- as advance against a sale agreement on valid grounds.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hanmiya Naik Pemawath
Income Tax Officer-Ward 13(3), Hyderabad
P. SAM KOSHY
N. TUKARAMJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
