The High Court rejected an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, finding that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had adequately considered the appellant's contentions regarding unexplained investments and that no substantial question of law warranted interference.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TVIONDAY,THE FOURTH DAYOF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEP.SAM KOSHY ANI)
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICESUDDALA CHALAPATHIRAO
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 288 OF 2008
Appeal under Section 260A of thelncome Tax Act,196'1against the order dated 29-06-2007in lT ( S.S.) A.No.17lHyd/1996 ( BlockPeriod1986-87to ' 1996-97) on the file of thelncome Tax AppellateTribunal'Bench"8" Hyderabad.
Between:
[t/.Aruna UR of lM. Sridhar,(G.l.R. No S-701) R/o. l23Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT
AND
The Assistant Commissioner oftncomeTax,lnv. 2(1). Hyderabad
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYAfor SRI.A.V.KRISHNA KOUNDINYA FOR SRI P.MURALIKRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms.J. SUNITHA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR I.T.DEPARTMENT
The Court delivered the followingJudgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI J UST ICE P.SAM KOSHY
ANT)
THE HONOURAtsL E SRT JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
INCOMB TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.288 of 2008
JI'DGl\lENl :,t. !t,. r . .'. .r,.tunt,r t \rtn
^'orr,
Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, lcarned counsel lcrr the appellanL, and Ms. J.Sunita, Icarned Ser-rior Standing counsel lor Irconre'r'ax Depar.trnent appearing on behalf o1- the respondent.
t. I.(S.S.)A.No.17l1lvdl1996 fbr the block pe.iod r986-u7 1o 1996-97, clecidcd on 19.06.2007.
Page 2 of2
contentions put forth by the appellant and the ITAT found that there are ceftain admissions being made by the appellant himsellin the course of the proceedings drawn by the Income Tax Departurcnt
5 As a sequel, tniscellaneous petitions pending il any, shall stand closed.
SD/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Kul/psl
\qr
)
,
HIGH COURT
DATED:04/08/2025
..1. <br>'( i-
/.,,;-
.,
// -'
.t
.r 18 StP 2U5
*
O6 Jr. :,.,
JUDGMENT
ITTA.No.288 of 2008
RE.I EC]TI}i(} TI{E ITTA
WTI HOUl'COS fS
-^o\aoA c &F.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the income tax tribunal erred in confirming additions based on the appellant's admission of unexplained investment?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
U.Aruna
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
P.Sam Koshy
Suddala Chalapathirao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
