Dismissed

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Telangana HC15 Jun 2023ITTA/40/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax against a Sheikh Tribunal Order. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide applicability of Section 2(14)(v) Avaluation, deeming issues as open for the AO to weigh submissions. No costs awarded.

What did the court decide?

A ironomy of the Tribunal's remand order, noting issues were open for the AO.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs Sri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

1 I I I I i I I i l

[³³¹¹ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶9

INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO:40 OF 2022

¶10

(lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B ', Hyderabad in ITA No.909/Hyd12016, for Assessment Year 2008-09, dated 23-07-2021, preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)7, Hyderabad, ITA No.1066/CIT(A)-712O14-15 dated 25-02-2016, preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad PAN/GlR No.ACJpC0242M, dated 20-0'1-2015.)

¶11

Between:

¶12

The Pr. Commissioner of lncome-tax-4, Hyderabad

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

AND

¶15

Sri. Krishna Chigullapally, B-13, New Fruit Market Comptex, Kothapet, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad -500 036. PAN. ACJPC 0242 M

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) DEPT., Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

TII I] I I()N'llt-11^'l H t'.^(ll{IEF USTICE AI I] FI U\ AN

¶20

AND

¶21

TFID TION'BI,I] SRI TI E N.TU R

¶22

l.'f .'l'.A.No.40 of 2022

¶23

JUDGLIENT^,r"' tt.,, ,t"'|i.^{t )t,:|t',"} ttl:,t^Bt.'rq'an)

¶24

Ilcrrt: \lr. |^. '^{. l) rrt} s.ttl.^{ltrLrned Senior Standing(lc)Lrnsc[,Incomc} lrrr l)cpartrnent^{t()r tll(' tpPCllrrrlt}

¶25

). Lhi: rtlr[)(rtl llrts irtcrl Pl-clerrcd^{bv thc rcvctltlcas thc aPPcllant} Lrndcr Sccu()r) 2(t(.),'<sup>of- t[rc lrrcomc 'l'ax Act, 1961 Qlicflv^{'the r\ct'} lrcrcinaftcr) ag,rt'rst thc^{olclt'r clrtcd23.01 .2021 passccl by thc Income} 'l rx '\ppcll'rtc^'l ribLrnll, llvtle rebad Bench 'B', Flydcrabad (bricfl1' 'the 'l rtl>trnal' ht'rcirr,Litcr) in I 'l'..\ Xo.909/Hyd/2016 for rhc assessment lcar 2008^2()()9.

¶26

-) fhe appcrl hrts^{lrt:ctr tiled proposing thc flollorvin€!qucso()nsas}

¶27

substantral^{(lllcstions ()f lxw:}

¶28

\hethcr^,rtr tltc^{lacts:rnrl trl thc circumstanceso[ thc case' is not} the dccisi<,n ol^{tltc 'l ritrurtrlrrl rgnoringthe rclevanr andgermane} materials anrl lrntlirrgs^{oi tirt assessing officcr and irl takng rnto} consiclcr:(io^{t.t irrelcvantmatt:rials bad in law andpcn'crscand alsoa} lailure to crctt:isc^its lLIrischcLion^{as thc fiflal fact findingatrthorit)''?} 2. \'hethet o,r tltt lrLt'ls rLrrr] irt the circumstances^{ol- thc case. the} I-ribtrnll u :ts t.tglt^t in ltst,xing the matter back to the^{filc oI}

¶29

I t

¶30

¶31

asscssirll tifficcr thr-,ugh^{tirc assellsirll;oiticcrca t<:gr-r |ic'tll| tlotrilllt} orr rt'corti^{rhat thc asscsscc s illtclluol) is cleatll' lrct rlntl thc lltrtr.tc""''} of the le{:islarlve^{intcntand cannot bc classifictlrLs lalllng'vithin thc} e xcmptions under^{Scction2(14)ot thc ,\ct ?}

¶32

i. Whetlrer^rJn thc^{facts and in tht' t:ircurnstat lccs of thc casc, rhc} '[ ribr-rnai was rig[rt in nc.r t considerine the fat:t that tltc asscsst'c s case talls within one of the^{condrtions' uameh'.}

¶33

rX/hethcr an agriculnrrist would purclrase thc lantl fot algiculrural purposes at^rltc Price^{at rvhichthc land rvassold and} whethct the owner rvould havc^{evcr soldthc land i'aluingit rsa} properr'v yieldrng agricultutal produce^{on the bisis of its} f^ield following the law laid down by the Gujarar^{High (.ourt in the} t:asc c,f CIT v. Siddharth J Desai^{(1983) 139 I-fR 628 (tiui} ) rvhich tcst was also considered by the^{Supreme (lourt in thc} case ol' Sarifa BIBI Mohammed reportcd in^{(1993) 204 I'fR} 631 (S().

¶34

Orr going through the order of the^Tnbunal

¶35

datcd 23.01 .2021, we Frnd that Tribunal^as a mattct o[^facthas rcmanded the matter back to the file o[ thc^assessing officer^by allowing the appeal. Relevant portion oF^{thc order} of^{thc T'ribunal} aated 23.07.2021 reads as [ollows:

¶36

¶37

We have given our thoughtftrl consideration to^revenue's [crregoing contendons. Wc find no rcason to sustain e itl-rer party's submissions in cntirety. We make it clcar first of all that therc is no clarity on the basic chnching issue as to rvhether the^lands

I I

c()aa(''lc(l I.,.rltq s.l)lr( | .lrrttct: of tlrc imltugncd tra,sfcr- hcrci' [irrrncr' rL ( rl)1ral rrss(r 1r,.. ]ii+)(in)(a) ancl (b) oi rhe \cr or rror. '\ltlr,,Lrglr lr,rtlr tlrt kar.r',-1 r't P resc. tarives Iia'c arguctl suitlcic.rlt, o, all rhc ti. rr:q.irp1 rss.( s. \.( trncl that thc assessing offlcer as wcll as thc^(-l ['i , nou.hcr.r,(.].t)1(,sscd anv opinion on rhc application of thc' lorcqr,inr, sr,.llut()r\ l-rr(,.rsi()n dcfining a capital tssct which cou[l ]rt, l.t.ld es llr\ 1rl!l r.is(, ro rhe impugned capital giuns. Dr.l{ajcnrlra l\ulnar. rrt thrs slxgs sought to invite our atrention to the Lrct thar rlrcsc lrs5('sscc. l:ltl in fact applied tor pcrmission frorn the Ilvrlt,r:rl;;tl \lurrrciPa] \rrrholty 'HI,fDA' vcrv wcll aftcr the impuuncrl tr,lnster lrr ,,r ar , rl- thc JDA as wcll as thc salc dccd (su;rra;- I'lr. l(iro norvhcrc tirspured applicauon of Sccoon 2(41)(v) on the othcr llitn(l.

¶43

l;acerl wirir tlls srlualiorr. rvc deem it appropriate to restofc thc instrrrrt r:linclrrnq issrrt. lnr l. ro rhe assessing officer to decide tl,rc applicabilin r,ISccriorr 2i 11. ol-rhe Act qaathe assessees'lands sold during thc rcl(,'anL pn'r'ious r car. It is made clear that the asscssing officcr shall ro by thc corrcsponding municipal lirruts prcscribed by dre oftlcial {'rzcrre n()rification rs appliiable on the date oI transfer only artl no rhcrealter'. Ncedful shall be donc within threc eflective opp rrrturirit.s oi ht uring. It is furthcr madc abundantly clear that .rll thesc assessc('s shall be at libertv to raise all factual/legal sLrbrnissiorrs a: rrrr.udmissible to thcm under the lan. -\ll thc:c llcrentrr''s livi rrPperls arc treated as allorvcd frrr statistlcal T)ullx)scs in li)t:eu()tng tenns. A copy o[ this common ordcr bc plat'c,i rn thc r.csper.rrr c casc filcs.

¶44

¶45

\'hcn thc appeai of thc rr:rrc:nuc rvas allou,cd bv thc^'l rrbrrnal a{!d rhc lr),lttcr rerlanclcd brcl< t() t[rc assessitrg officcr [.,r rcdetclrruniif r, rn, rvc fiil to undcrsrand as tt-' *'hv rhe Prcscnt apnr:rl ha.i bccn llrctcrrcd by the revenuc

¶46

6 At this stasc, learned .Se nior Standing Counscl frrr thc :rppcila:, t submits rhar ordcr of the assessirrg officer is a 'v<:ll reasoncc.l one aod thc rcrranr.l orclcr is \rery restnctive in narurr:.

¶47