SHRI PRABHUDAYAL AGARWAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10 [10], HYDERABAD

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 1 OF 2009 (Incorne Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "B" Hyderabad in ITA No. 504 TO 501 / Hyd./ 2003 and ITA Nos. 562 to 565 / Hyd/ 2003 dated 30-05-2008 for assessment years 1988-89 to l99l -92 preferred against the Commissioner of [ncome Tax -III, Hyderabad ( Appeals) , Guntur , CAMP at Hyderabad dated 30/12/2022 rn Appeal. Nos. 0059/ Tr./CIT (A) GNT/2002-03, 0058/Tr. / CIT (A) / GNT /2002-03,0057tTr.tCIT (A) GNT/ 2002-03 I 0055/Tr. /CIT (A) GNT/2002-03 preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5 (l ), (INV) Hyderabad in PAN/GIR No. P- 745, dated 3 l-03-1999. Between: Shri Prabhudayal Aganaral, Secunderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 10 [10], Hyderabad Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. Y. RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. P. SAPNA REDDY SC FOR J. V. PRASAD (sc FoR lNcoME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJT I.T.T.A.No.l of 2OO9 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAllI KOSHY) Heard Mr. Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.P. Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax, for the sole respondent. 2. The present is an appeal hled by the appellant under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 196 I assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench B" at Hyderabad in LT.A.Nos.SO4 to 5O7 lHyd/2OO3 and I.T.A.Nos.562 to 565/Hyd/2003, dated 3O.O5.20O8 (for short, 'the impugned order'). 3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent, vtz I.T.A.Nos.504 to 5OT /Hyd/2OO3, and simultaneously dismissed the appeals preferred by the assessee, viz., I.T.A.Nos.562, 564 and 565/Hyd/2OO3, while partly allowing I.T.A.No.563lHyd/Ba, uide order dated 3O.05.2OO8

2 4. On 27.07.2009, a Division Bench of this Court admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law, vtz "Whether on the facts and in the circttm-stonces of the case, the omission to con-sider mateial on record, submissions canuassed, euidence and the case lau.ts cited uhile dtsposing of the appeal would constitute a mistake apparent from the record, uesting juisdiction in the Income Tox Appellate Tibunal to re- call its order under Section 254 (2) ofthe Income Tox Act ?" 5. The challenge raised by the appellant in the instalt appeal primarily seems to be on the ground that the appellate-Tribunal erroneously concluded that the appellant started business in computers in 1988-99 whereas there was no such materia-l available before the Tribunal. Likewise, it was also contended by the appellant that computation of profits on sa-le of computers by the respondent as also by the Tribunal is erroneous and arbitrary. 6. Upon going through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, what is apparently evident is that the Tribunal had considered these very grounds which the appellant has raised extensively in the grounds of appeal, and the Tribunal has decided these issues giving specific reasons while dismissing the appeals preferred by the assessee and partly allowing the -/

.,,/ ) appeals filed by the respondent. Therefore, the iindings given by the Tribunal appear to be finding on fact. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the question of law framed by this Court while admitting the appeal has to be answered in the negative, holding that there was in fact no mistake apparent on record committed by the Tribuna_l while passing the impugned order. 7 Therefore, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR (-,$r SECTION OFFICER To, L:ul 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ,,B', Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax -lll, Hyderabad ( Appeals) , Guntur , CAMP at Hyderabad 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle -5 (1 ), (lNV) Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRl. Y. RATNAKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. J. V. PRASAD (SC FOR TNCOME TAX) [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ${F

HIGH COURT PSKJ & NTRJ DATED: 2211112023 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.1 of 2009 DISMISSING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS 1 BE STAI€- Joo [ 4 JAN 2024 * OFspATc q >Z * t"& .S" i I I r1.