M.ARUNA L/R OF M. SRIDHAR, SRINAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABD

ITTA/288/2008HC TelanganaHBHC01045213200804 August 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the contentions and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant did not raise a question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, that would warrant interference with the impugned order passed by the ITAT. The Court noted that a perusal of the impugned order showed that the ITAT had threadbare considered the contentions put forth by the appellant and found that there were certain admissions made by the appellant during the proceedings conducted by the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the appeal was rejected. No costs were awarded. The High Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Ms. Aruna UR, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated June 29, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench 'B', Hyderabad. The appeal pertained to the block period from 1986-87 to 1996-97. The ITAT's order was challenged by the appellant. The revenue was represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Inv. 2(1), Hyderabad. The High Court heard arguments from both the appellant and the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was justified in accepting the respondent's contention that no addition could be made regarding the purchase of property at Bangalore solely on the ground of the appellant admitting unexplained investment during the block period? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on provisions related to unexplained investments and additions). Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that the ITAT was not justified in accepting the revenue's contention regarding the Bangalore property purchase, implying that the ITAT's reasoning was flawed. The appellant sought to canvass this point. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that there could be no addition with regard to the purchase of property at Bangalore solely on the ground of the appellant having admitted the unexplained investment during the said block period. The ITAT accepted this contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TVIONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 288 OF 2008 Appeal under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act, 196'1 against the order dated 29-06-2007 in lT ( S.S.) A.No. 17lHyd/1996 ( Block Period 1986-87 to 1996-97) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal' Bench "8" ' Hyderabad. Between: [t/.Aruna UR of lM. Sridhar, (G.l.R. No S-701) R/o. l23 Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND The Assistant Commissioner of tncome Tax, lnv. 2(1). Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.V.A. SIVA KARTIKEYA for SRI.A.V.KRISHNA KOUNDINYA FOR SRI P.MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. J. SUNITHA, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR I.T.DEPARTMENT The Court delivered the following Judgment

THE HONOURABLE SRI J USTICE 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. 2. l'he instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sectio, 2604 of the Income J'ax Act. 1961, assailing the order passed by the Incomc Tax t .{ppcltate TrihLrnal. IIl,derabad Llench 'B', Hi,derabad (1or short the ,I I'A.I',) in t. I.(S.S.)A.No.17l1lvdl1996 fbr the block pe.iod r986-u7 1o 1996-97, clecidcd on 19.06.2007. 3. Though the learned counsel for the appellant tried to canvass the lact that thc ITAT \vas r1o1 justified in accepting the contention ol Ll-re respondent that there cannot bc any addition with regard to the purchase ol propefty at Bangalore solely or.r the ground ol the appellant having admitted the unexplained investnrent during the said block period. Howcver, perusal ol the inrpuorred order w,ould go to show that the I'lA^l'has threadbare considcrcd lhe

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 4. 'Ihus, we are of the considercd opinion that the contentions and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant do not make out a question of law, much less a substantial question of law calling lor an interlerence to the impugned ordcr passcd by the ITAI'. The instaLrt appeal thus fails, and is accordingly, rejected. No costs 5 As a sequel, tniscellaneous petitions pending il any, shall stand closed. SD/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench "B" , Hyderabad. One CC to Sri P. Nilurali Krishna,Senior Standing Councel for lT [OPUC] 5Y,tL one CC to [/ls. J. Sunitha , qdtasale (OPUC) One CC to SRl. A V KRISHNA KOUNDINYA, Advocate IOPUC] Two C.D.Copies Kul/psl \qr 1 ) a 4 5

) HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.288 of 2008 RE.I EC]TI}i(} TI{E ITTA WTI HOUl'COS fS ..1. \ /.,,;- // -' .\, .t '( i- I i , O6 * Jr. :,., -^o\aoA c &F. .r 18 StP 2U5

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →