Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. The East India Petroleum Pvt. Ltd

rN rHE HrcH.orTf8IorJllBlt E oF TELANGANA THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THoUSAND AND rWer.rYrirnf e-' PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY rHE H.N,BLE sRr JUSTT.E tlir, ,o*o"ANA ALrsHErry TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO Between: The Kond AND Counset for the Appellant: SRt. A. RADHA KRISHNA Counsel forthe Respondent: None appeared The Court made the foltowing: ORDER rncome tax Apperate Tribunar Under Section 260 -A of the rncome Tax Act' 1961 aggrieved by the order of the rncome Tax Apperate Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench-B , Hyderabad dated 24-08-2021 in rrA No. 2402 l Hydt 2018 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) _5, Signature Towers , Kondapur, Hyderabad in Appeat No. OSZ112014-15 /ClT (A) - 5 dated 03'10-201g preferred against the order of the Deputy commissioner of Income Tax , Circte _2 (2), Hyderabad dated 30-12-2011 in pAN / GtR No. AAACE4494K INCOM E TAX :267 OF 2022 ...RESPONDENT i Princip.al Commissioner of lncome Tax_2, 6rh apur, Opp.Botanical Gardens, UVae,iUaJ.'-' " Floor, Signature Towers. ...APPELLANT The East lndia petroleum p, HrJ"* bil':i6o ffi :iHi,[.XAi[ :AZ ff)*o n" rowe is' G reen La nds, Bes umpet,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A.No.267 OF 2022 ORDE!:/,, ' ' :,t, :' , .',,\'P,salt KosHY) I'his appt:al under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 . has been fllcd erssailing the order, dated 24.08.202 1 passed br thc Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' Hrrlcr.;rbad. (for short "the Tribunal') in I.T.A.No2402/Hydl2Ot8 for tlrt Assessmenl Year 2OO7 2OOa 2. Challenge rnade by the revenue is to the order passed bv the C.1.1'. (Appeals) ar-rcl also that of the Tribunal so far as disallo',r'ance of Rs.2,46,00.OOO/ made by the Assessing Ofhcer tori,,ards unrcported receipts lrom M/s. Wardha Power Co., and addition of Rs.5,0O,0O,000/ - made under Section aO(a)(ia) of the Act, 196 t. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the order passed bv the Tribunal and stated that the Tribunal as also the C.l.T. (Appeals) have heard in as much as in appreciating the fact that there u,as gross receipt from M/s. Wardha Power Private Limitcd which u.as not offered to ta-x by the Assessee to the tur-re of Rs.2,46,OO,000/ , likewise, there was also a disallowance of Rs.5,0O,00,000/- made under Section ao(a)(ia) of the Act, 196 l. Both t hese facts have not been properly appreciated and therefore

\ ..'-;: #$ PSK,J & LNA,.t I.T.T.A.No.267 oJ 2O22 the instant appeal needs to be admitteci on the aforesaid facts lor \. the Tribunal having q:rongl), considered / u,rongl.i, appreciatcd the contentions that were raised 4. That on perusal of the records particularh' going through the order that has been passed by the C.l.T. (Appeals) and which is further been afhrmed by the Tribunal we find that these vcry contentions on which the present appeal have been raiserl. has been duly considered by the Tribr.rnal. The Tribunal has gont: ir-rto the lactual details and reached to the conclusion that the C.l.T.(Appeals) was justihed 1n disallowing the same, both in respect of disallowance of the receipts of Rs.2,46,O0,00O/ lrom M/s. Wardha Power Co. Likeu,ise the Tribunal has further taken note of the specifrc agreements that were entered into between the Assessee and M/s. Amongst VIZ Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Sainj. 1'aking into consideration the conditions0 of the agreement and transactions between the parties, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that there is no infirmity so far as the C.l.T. (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.5,0O,OO,000/ - made by the Assessing Officer under Section aO(a)(ia) of the Act, 196 1, treating it as contingent in nature. 5. Given the fact that the Tribunal has extensively and 2 elaborately considered and discussed the grounds and objections

PSK,J & LNA,J I.T.T.A. No.2 6 7 o.f 2O22 s.hich the app('ll:tr)r har.e raiscd in the present appeal, ir.e hnd thal the rt'e.sons assrryred l;r the Tribunal as u,ell as the C.l.T. (Appeals) are I)LIre qucsrion ol facts rvhich have been duly appreciated, consi(lcred arrrl i lt,zrlt u ith l;r the Tribunal u,hile reaching to the con('rl rrcnt Iinri irr g oI lact. 6. lVe do not lltrcl an.r sutrstantial question of law made out by the appellant in rhe present appeal and the appeal fails. Accorrlir-rgly, this:rppeal is rejected. No order as to costs. 7. Consetlucn I lr'. miscellant,ous lletitions pending, if any, shall stanrl closed. Sd/. B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, B Bench, Hyderabad The Commissioner of lncome Tax ( Appeals) -5, Signature Towers , Kondapur, Hyderabad The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax , Circle -2 (2), Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. A. RADHA KRISHNA, Advocate TOPUCI Two CD Copies -{ .J It' l To 1. 2. 3 4 5 rt

HIGH COURT DATED:19/10/2023 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.267 of 2022 REJECTING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS co 20 Nt\l il,J g STAr6 a ,;o a {i f, * * .J i.Ji]S PT,JC i l