The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. M/s. Lumbini Constructions Ltd.,

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/735/2014HC TelanganaHBHC01053199201431 December 20143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the provision under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act was wrongly invoked. The Court noted that the fact-finding by the Tribunal was not alleged to be perverse by the Revenue. Consequently, the Court found no element of law to be decided in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the Tribunal's fact-finding was not challenged as perverse, and therefore, no substantial question of law arose. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad (the Revenue) against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated September 23, 2011. The assessment year in question is 2006-2007. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's decision to set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had found that Section 69 of the Act was wrongly invoked, and this fact-finding was not alleged to be perverse by the Revenue. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the CIT passing an order under Section 263, which was then challenged before the Tribunal, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the Tribunal's finding). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law, in setting aside the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act? (Question of law, concerning the application of Section 263). The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's order was perverse and that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the CIT's order under Section 263. The Revenue's arguments are not detailed beyond these points. The judgment records no specific arguments or reliance on authorities by the Revenue. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

I.T.T.A. No. 735 of 2014

DATE: 31.12.2014

Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad. … Appellant

And

M/s. Lumbini Constructions Ltd., Hyderabad.

… Respondent

This Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

I.T.T.A. No. 735 of 2014

Judgment: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 23.9.2011 in relation to the assessment year 2006-2007 on the following suggested questions of law. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is perverse ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law, in setting aside the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act ?

The learned Tribunal, on fact, found that the provision under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act was wrongly invoked. The fact finding has not been alleged to be perverse. In that view of the matter, we do not find any element of law to be decided in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs. _________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 31st December, 2014 pnb

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →