The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 4 vs. M/s. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/105/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01035902202509 July 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the ITAT had categorically dealt with the ground raised by the Revenue. The ITAT's findings indicated that the expenditure claim of Rs. 6,23,10,775/- was substantiated by extracts in the books of account and supporting bills/vouchers, further corroborated by independent evidence in the shape of bank account statements. The ITAT noted that once the claim was supported by books of account, bills, vouchers, and bank statements, the need for further verification was not felt by the Commissioner (Appeals). The High Court found that both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the ITAT were satisfied with the nature of evidence adduced, which primarily served as corroborative evidence for bank statements. The Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law made out by the appellant (Revenue), and therefore, the appeal was rejected. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Hyderabad (Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated January 15, 2025, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad 'B' Bench. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2016-17 and challenges the ITAT's decision concerning M/s. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee). The Revenue's primary contention was that the Commissioner Appeals and the ITAT failed to properly appreciate Rule 40A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, regarding the production of additional evidence before appellate forums. The Revenue argued that the matter should have been remanded for scrutinizing additional evidence produced for the first time before the appellate forum.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner Appeals and the ITAT failed to properly appreciate Rule 40A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, concerning the production of additional evidence before appellate forums, and whether the matter ought to have been remanded for scrutinizing such evidence produced for the first time? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Rule 40A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Commissioner Appeals and the ITAT ought to have remanded the matter for scrutinizing the additional evidence which was produced before the appellate forum for the first time, as they failed to properly appreciate Rule 40A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

l3M7 | IN THE HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA tNcoME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 105 OF 2025 Appeal under section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, agalnst the order dated 15-0'1-2025 in l.T.A.No.84lHydl2021 for the assessment year 2016'17 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench. Hyderabad Between: The Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax- 4, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND M/s. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd, Door No. 2-2- 11O511O, Trlak Nagar Hyderabad 500082,Telangana ... Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy (Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.tOS OF 2o2s JUDGMENT @er Ih,t'l)le S.a.tustLce p_Sant Kosh\) Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, iearned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Ta-x, appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. The instant appeal under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act, 196 1, has been prelerred by the Revenue as the appellant against the order, dated 15.O1.2025,. passed by the Income Ta_x Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad 'B" Bench, Hyderabad, in I.T.A.No.8aIHyd/2O2l for the Assessment Year 2016' 17 . 3. The prim ar1. ground of challenge raised bv the k:arned Stancling Counsel appearing for the appellant was that the Commissioner Appeals as also the ITAT has failed to properly appreciate the Rule 4oA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 dealing with the additional evidence to be produced beforc the appeilate forum. 4 The contention of the learned Standing Counsel [or the appellant that the Commissioner appeals as also the ITAT ought to have

Page 2 of4 up the said deficiency, bills/ evidences produced all the relevant by the assessee '1 remanded the matter for scrutinizing the additionar evidence rvhich was produced before the appellate forum for the flrst time. 5. However, perusal of record, particularly, the findings given by the ITAT, we find that the very ground raised by the appellant was dealt with by the learned ITAT categorically. The findings of the learned ITAT is reproduced hereinunder: "To make vouchers / before the Ld. CIA (A) in support of claim of expenditure of Rs.6,23, lO,7TS/_. Therefore, the claim of assessee has been substantiated by the extracts in the book of account and supporting bills and vouchers which r.r,as further corroborated by independent evidence in the shape of Bank Account Statement. Once the claim has been supported by Books of Accounr and bills & vouchers as rvell as independent evidence of Bank Account Statement, the need of further verification v'as right not felt by Ld. CIT (A)." 6' The aforesaid findings by itself wourd go to show that both the commissioner Appeals as arso the learned ITAT u,ere satisfied nith the nature of evidence that was adduced. The additional evidences were only in the forum of corroborative evidences supporting bank account statements. The other ledgers already produced by the Assessing Officer, in which the learr.red ITAT linds that mere;;-submission of t_

Page 3 of 4 the relevant vouchers to the Assessing Ofhcer ald producing them for the first time before the appellant forum by itself cannot be said to be factually incorrect. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, r.r,e do not find anv substantial question of lau, m ade out by the appellants. The appea,l fails and is accordingly rejected. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD QEPUTY REGISTRAR II \ J //TRUE COPY// 't secflon oFFrcER To, 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench. Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Mr K Sudhakar Reddy (Sr SC FOR INCOME TAX)[OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies Kam,?SL W

HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 JUDGMENT lTTA.No.105 of 2025 THE APPEAL IS REJECTED BE ST 1 416 tL ,) i,_) :() 05 AIJE 206 't t oE5o.,'-.,'r t€-(l \ a 5 a\

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →