SHRI PRABHUDAYAL AGARWAL vs. THE INCOME OFFICER, WAR 10 [10], HYDERBAD

[ 337s I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ' ATHYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAYOF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI l.T.T.ANo: 4 of 20Og lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Seclion 260-A of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B' Hyderabad, in ITA Nos.504 to 507/Hyd/2003, 562 to 565/Hydl2OO3 for assessment Year 1988-89 to 1991-92 dated 30{5-2008 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of ln@me Tax (Appeals), Guntur Camp at Hyderabad, Appeal No.0059/Tr-IC|T(A)GNT/20O2-03, 0058/Tr./C|T(A)GNT/2002{3, 057/Tr./ClT(ApNT/2002-03, 0055/Tr./ClT(A)GNT/2002-03 date4:3O-12-2OO2, preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 5(1 XINV), Hyderabad. PAN/G lR.No.P-745 dated 3'1 -03-'l 999. Between: Shri Prabhudayal Agarwal, Secunderabad ...Appellant AND The lncome Officer, War 10 [10], Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Y. RATNAKAR Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. P. SAPNA REDDY, SC appearing on behalf of Mr. J.V. PRASAD (SC FOR lT) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I

T TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND TII E HONOURABLE SRJ JT'STICE N. TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.4 of 2OO9 DGME.lIT:(qer tfle Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Hea-d Mr. Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.P Sapna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax, for the sole respondent. 2. The present is an appeal Iiled by the appellant under Section 26O-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', at Hvderabad in I.T.A.Nos.504 to 5O7 /Hyd/2OO3 and I.T.A.Nos.562 to 565/Hyd/2003, dated 30.05.2008 (for short, 'the impugrred order). 3. Vide -}le impugned order, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent, viz., I.T.A.Nos.5O4 to 5O7 /Hyd/2OO3, and simultaneously dismissed the appeals preferred ry the assessee, viz., I.T.A.Nos.562, 564 and 565/ Hyd/2')O3, while partly allowing I.T.A.No.563 /Hyd/O3a, uide order dated 30.05.20O8.

2 4. On 27.O7.2OO9, a Division Bench of this Court admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law' vtz., "Wh.ether on the Jacts ond in the circumstances of the case, tle omrlssion to consi-der mateial on record, submissions canuassed., euidence and the cose laus cited uhile disposing of the appeal uould constitute a mistake aPparent from tle record' uesting iurisdiction in the Income Tot Appellate Tibunal to re- call its order under Section 25a P) of the lncome Tox Act ?" 5. The challenge raised by the appellant in the instant appeal primarily seems to be on the ground that the appellate-Tribunal erroneoudly concluded that the appellant started the business in computers in 1988-99 whereas there was no such material available before the Tribunal. Likewise, it was also contended by the appellant that computation of profits on sale of computers by the respondent as also by the Tribunal is erroneous and arbitrary. 6. Upon going through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, what is apparently evident is that the Tribunal had considered these very grounds which the appellant has raised extensively ln the Grounds of Appeal, and the Tribunal has decided these issues giving specific reasons while dismissing the appeals preferred by the assessee and partly allowing the

3 appeals hled by the respondent. Therefore, the Iindings given by the TriburLal appear to be finding on fact. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the question of law framed by this Court while admitting the appeal has to be answered in the negative, trolding that there was in fact no mistake apparent on record conrmitted by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 7. Ther<:fore, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed No costs 8. Cons:quently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/4.V, MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The lncc me Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B ' Hyderabad' i. fne Contmissionei of lncome Tax (Appeals), Guntur Camp at Hyderabad 5. in. o"prty commissioner of lncome Tax, Circles(1XINV)' Hyderabad' a. one Ci to Mr. Y. RATNAKAR, Advocate [oPUC] 5. One CC to Mr. J.V. PRASAD (SC FOR lT) [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies kamI MY

I I I HIGH COURT DATED:;2211112023 JUDGME:NT ITTA.No.4 of 2009 DISMISSING ' THE API'EAL a 2u+ 27 tEB .-t * 1,5 l,-r l\ li..,9 *n c.l W f