M/S. DEEPODAYA FINANCE CORPORATION, HYDERABAD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD.

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/167/2008HC TelanganaHBHC01028284200812 February 2025Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question raised by the appellant was not a substantial question of law, but rather a pure question of fact. The Court noted that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was initiated by the concerned authority, and the appellant was granted two opportunities to participate in the proceedings, which they did. The matter had been considered at all levels, including the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the appellant had not succeeded. Therefore, the appeals were found to be devoid of merit and were rejected. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by M/s. Deepodaya Finance Corporation (the appellant) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against a common order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A'. This order pertained to assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-97. The appellant challenged the reopening of assessments under Section 148 of the Act, arguing that it was vitiated because a return of income had already been filed. The appellant had participated in the proceedings after the reopening and had lost at all prior forums, including the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is vitiated when a return of income has already been filed? (Question of law or mixed law and fact, turning on Section 148). The Assessee's contention was that the reopening proceedings under Section 148 of the Act were vitiated as the return of income had already been filed, thus precluding reassessment proceedings. The Revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO.NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos: 167. 168 & 169 OF 2008 |.T.T.A. NO. 167 0F 2008 Appeal filed under Section 260(A) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, against the order daled 27-04-2007 passed in lTA.No. 504 lHydl 1999 for tlTe (assessment year 1994 -95) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A' Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated '13-03-2001 passed in l.T.Appeal No. 40, 41 & 47lTTO-1 (6y CIT (A)-1 / 2000-01 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-|, Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated 30-03-2000 passed in PAN/GlR No. D-308 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle-7, Hyderabad. Between: M/s. Deepodaya Finance Corporation, 16-1 1 -477 13, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (6) Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel forthe Respondent: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY NCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 158 OF 2008 Appeal filed under Section 260(A) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961' against the order daled 27-04-2007 passed in lTA.No.524 /Hyd/ 1999 for the (assessment year 1995 -96) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A' Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated 13-03-2001 passed in l.T.Appeat No. 40, 41 & 47tTTO-1 (6y CIT (A)-1 / 2000-01 on the fite of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-|, Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated 31-03-2000 passed in PAN/GIR No. D-308 on the file of the lncome Tax Officer, W.1 (6), Hyderabad. Between M/s. Deepodaya Finance Corporation, 16-1 1 -4Zl 13, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (6) Hyderabad ..RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A.V.A. S|VA KART|KEYA Counsel forthe Respondent: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY I.T.T.A. NO. 't69 0F 2008: Between: M/s. Deepodaya Finance Corporation, 16-11-47713, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad ..APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward - '1 (6) Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY

The Court made the fotlowing COMMON ORDER: Appeal filed under Section 260(A) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 27-04-2007 passed in lrA.No.525 lHydt 2oo1 for the (assessment year 1996 -97) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A' Hyderabad preferred against the order daled 13-03-2001 passed in t.T. Appeat No. 40, 41 & 4ilTTO_1 (6)/ CIT (A)-1 / 2000-01 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)_|, !ty!9gt_aO preferred against the Order dated 31-03-2001 'passed'in PAN/clR No. D-308 on the file of the lncome Tax Officer, W.1 (6), Hyderabad.

t THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA I ! I I.T.T.A.Nos.167 168 and 169 of2OOE COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hoft'ble Sn Justice P. Sam Koshg) The instalt appeals have been hled by the appellants under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act) assailing the common order dated 27.O4.2OO7, in I.T.A.Nos.5O4 lHydl1999, I.T.A.No.524 &' 5251Hyd12001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'A' Bench (for short, the "Tribunal') for the assessment year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 -

2.

Heard Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the appellants, and Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of the respondent.

3.

The challenge in the instant appeals are on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to see that the reopening proceedings under Section 148 of the Act stood vitiated as the return of income has already been frled, and therefore, no reassessment proceedings could have been initiated.

4.

However, perusal of the records would show that the authority concerned had reopened the assessment under Section 148 of the Act and had gralted two opportunities to the appellants herein and the appellants also participated in the proceedings, arrd l.hereafter, the impugned common order has been passed. That the order passed by the Tribunal was subjected to chaJlenge before the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - I, Hyderabad, as also before the Tribunal. However, the appellants have lost at all forums.

5.

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not frnd the question raised by the appellants to be a question of law, much less a substa,tial question of law, as all the grounds raised aie pure question of facts having been duly considered by the authorities concerned at a]l levels.

6.

The appeals thus being devoid of merit, fails and are accordingly rejected. No costs. 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed Sd/-K. SRINIVASA RAO, OINT REGISTRAR //// ECTION OFFICER To 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A' Hyderabad

2.

The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-|, Hyderabad

3.

The lncome Tax Officer, WARD 1 (6), Hyderabad.

4.

One CC to SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, Advocate TOPUCI

5.

One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

6.

Two CD Copies Kul

HIGH COURT PSKJ & NNRJ DATED:1210212025 2 I APn 2025 C ,6t SIql .9 p/ r r'q(O 1 Op 6 -) t COMMON JUDGMENT lTTA.No.167, 168 AND 169 of 2008 REJI]CTING TIIE Il"IA WITHOUT COSTS I k

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →