Dismissed

M/s. Nanesh Finance Corporation v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad

Telangana HC28 Jul 2023ITTA/32/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of an Income Tax Tribunal appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held the appellant's issue concerning cash seizure entries is purely a question of fact and not a substantial question of law, rejecting the appeal as devoid of substance.

What did the court decide?

Income Tax Tribunal Appeal dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending in the appeal stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

M/s. Nanesh Finance Corporation Vs Income Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

i i

¶2

[^337e ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENry EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶9

INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 32 OF 2023

¶10

lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B ', Hyderabad in lrA No.465/HYD12021, for assessment Year 2019-20 dated 26-10-2022 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-1 1, Hyderabad, Appeal No. 1036912018-19 dated:06-09-2021, preterred against the Order of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad, pAN/GlR No.AAlFN2B56M dated 21 -04-2021.

¶11

Between:

¶12

M/s. Nanesh Finance Corporation, G-7, Upper Ground Floor, Maheshwari Chamber, 6-3-65, Beside Medinova, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana 5O0Og2 Represgnted by-its Partner Smt. Anita Jatn Wo. Sdjjan Raj Jain, A{ed about 5.1 years, Office at.6-3-650, G 7, Maheshwari Chamberd, Somdjiguda - SOOOAZ

¶13

...Appellant

¶14

AND

¶15

Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad

¶16

(Amended as per Court Order dated:2316123 in lA.1 ot 2023)

¶17

... Respondent

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared

¶20

The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER

¶21

t i

¶22

I I

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI}

¶24

I.T.T.A.No. 32 OF 2o23

¶25

ORAL ORDER : 1P(rr^{Hon'bleSri IusticcP. Sam l(oshy)}

¶26

This Appeal is filed^{under Section 2604. of the Income Tax} Act, 1 96 I (for short Act,^{1961 ') . The challengeis to the Ordcr} date ct 26.I O.2O22^{passed b1' the Income Tax AppellateTribunal} 'B', Hyclcrabad (for short'ITAT')^{in I.T.A.No.465/HYD} 12O2L^'

¶27

Heard Mr. Mallu^{NethanReddy,learned counselfor the} appcllan t

¶28

The only point of issue^{raisedby the learne<lcounsel for} appellant is in^{respect of thc acceptance of Department with} reference to the cash^{seizurefrom the assessee beingreflected in} the books of accounts.^{Hor'vever,the contentionof the learned} counsel for appellant is th:rt^{even though the Departmenthas} accepted the fact that entries^{have been reflectedin the books of} accounts, but the same^{were not properlyappreciatedand the} same were not unaccounted^{or reintroducedamount.s.}

¶29

On perusal of the record and on^going through'the^hndings given by the ITAT in the impugned order, particularly, the finding

¶30

¶31

reflected in paragraph Nos. 7 [o 9 dealing u.ith the same issue which the appellant inlends to raise in the instant appeal, we are of the considered view that the matter agitated by the appellant is purely the question of fact and does not fall in the ambit a question of law much less a substantial question of larn,. Therefore, the Appeal being devoid of any subsLance, deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the Income Tax Tribunal Appbal is dismissed.

¶32

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶33

Sd/.M.VIJAYA BHASKAR JotNr REGts/RAR

//TRUE COPY//

w/ SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B IHyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-1 1, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle-1(2) Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI MALLU NETHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶39

Two CD Copies o^/

¶40

HIGH COURT

¶41

DATED:2810712023

¶42

'), :'
17 [llB 2$8
\Y

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

ITTA.No.3Z of²⁰²³

¶45

THE APPEAL
IS DISMISSED

M/s. Nanesh Finance Corporation v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Nanesh Finance Corporation v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sri Surya Constructions Vs The Income Tax Officer

Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

Jupally Real Estate Developers Private Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Sri Jayanth Engineering Company Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes

M/s. Ph Jewels and 2 others Vs Union of India and 5 others

Sanjay Agarwal Vs Union of India