THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SARNALA SAYABABU

I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.27 of 2079 Appeal under Section 260 A of Income Tax Act, against the order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the Income Visakhapatnam Bench Tax Appellate Tribunal, in ITA No. 98A/iz/2021, Principal Visakhapatnam (Assessment year 2016-2017), preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada, dated 24.03.2021, which was preferred against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Guntur in PAN/GIR. No. AHEPS0990A/A.Y.2016-17/ITO, W-2(3)/Guntur, dated 21.12.2018. Between: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada. ...Appellant AND Sri Sarnala Sayababu, Proprietor, Modern Agro Industries, D.No.8-24- 61, Main Road, Agathavarappadu, Auto Nagar, Guntur. PAN; AHEPS0990A. ...Respondent : Sri Y N Vivekananda, SC for Income Tax Counsel for the Respondent : Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya The Court made the following: Counsel for the Appellant

\ APHC010485412022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA at amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE the honourable SRI JUSTICE INCOIVIE TAY tpipi APPFfli PRADESH 1 [3516] FIVE B. KRISHNA MOHAN NYAPATHY VIJAY NO: 27/20?? Between: The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax -APPELLANT AND Sri Sarnala Sayababu Counsel for the Appellant: 1.Y N VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent: 1 .A V A SIVA KARTIKEYA -RESPONDENT

2 HBKM,J & HVN,J I.T.T.A.No.27of2022 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal arises against the order passed by the Income Tax 2. Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.No.98/Viz./2021 dated 11.05.2022 for the assessment year.2016-17. The respondent-Assessee filed returns on 15.10.2016, thereafter, an 3. assessment order was passed under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act^ 1961 on 21.12.2018 and aggrieved by the same, the respondent/ass essee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority dated 23.01.2019. Pending the appeal, he filed an application under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 21.03.2020. Consequently, the appeal was closed on 19.01.2021. But the appellant invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and for which, the dated 03.02.2021 issued show cause notice respondent/assessee submitted reply for the same. Then the order was passed by the Revisional Authority on 24.03.2021 observing that this revisional authority still can go into the issue of whether the asset is a short term capital asset or long term capital asset. The appellant invoked the revisional authority under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved by the same, the respondent/assessee ..filed the above said Income Tax

3 HBKMJ & HVN,J l■T.T.A.No.27of2022 appeal before the (earned Tribunal the merits of the in I.T.A.No.98of2021 and after going into case, the Tribunal held that, once the matter under VSV invoked under Scheme has reached finality, the same cannot be proceedings under the Income Tax Act any other or under any law for the time being i Section 5 (3) of the Direct Tax in force by relying upon the Act, 2020 and revisional authority under Section 263 of the Act. Vivad Se Vishwas issuance of Form-5 by the as such, it found fault with the i 4. Accordingly, the appellant preferred this said to have been arisen; assesse’s appeal was allowed appeal on the following substantial against which, the question of (aw Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the order of the Tribunai but perverse”. case, the 2) Whether, on facts and in Hon'ble ITAT circumstances of the case and in law, the passed u/s. 263 of issue settled in VSV is different up in the order for revision u/s.263?. ” was justified in quashing the order the Act without considering that the /, from the issue taken 5. On perusal and upon hearing the submissions any substantial question of law i of both the counsels, in this appeal as the observation we do not find of the Tribunal iIS reasonable, justified and iin accordance with (aw. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ^ r.'

4 HBKM,J & HVN,J I.T.T.A.No.27of2022 As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd /- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. One CC to Sri Y N Vivekananda, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A V A Siva Kartikeya, Advocate {OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies TK TF

* HIGH COURT DATED:11/02/2025 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.27 of 2022 ' AV V 17 JUN ?0?5 m DISMISSING THE ITTA