HANMIYA NAIK P vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 13(3)

[ 337e ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI .A.No:148 of 201 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ,8,, Hyderabad in ITA No.362/HYD12016, for assessment year 2O11-12 dated 30-08- 2017 preterred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-4, Hyderabad, lTA.No.0379/2014-15/lTO, Wd. 13(3yCtT(A)-4tHydt2O1S-16 dated 09- 11-2015 preferred against the Order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. ACUPP7201N dated 31-03-2014. Between: Hanmiya Naik Pemawath ...AppellanUAppellant AND lncome Tax Officer-Ward 13(3), Hyderabad ...RespondenURespondent Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH. SAMSON BABU Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, representi4g SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA t. The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI I.T.T.A.No.148 of 2019 JUDGM ENT : Qte r Hon' bl e Sri .lusrice P. SAM KOS H y) Heard Ms.K.Mamata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 2. The present is an appeal filed under Section 260,4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, by the appellant assailing the order dt.30.08.2017 passed by the Inconre Tax Appellate Tribunal, IJyderabad Bench ,B', Hyderabad, in I.T.A.No.362lHydl2\l6 for the Assessment Year 2Oll-12. 3. The present appeal has been primarily assailed so lar as the rejecting of claim in respect of Rs.32,00,000/- atlegedly received by the appellants as advance of the agreement of sale executed on 18.10.2010. The agreement of sale was in respect of the assessee's agriculture land. 4. However, on perusal of the finding arrived at by the Tr-ibunal on this aspect, it is evidently clear that the Tribunal has extensively dealt with all the contentions of the appellant and reached to the specific finding that except for an evidence of receiving ol Rs.2,00,000/- on the date of agreement of sale, there was no other cogent, independent,

2 substantial evidence led by the assessee before the assessing officer or before two Appellate authorities and thus, we are of the considered opinion that the finding given by the Tribunal affirming the order passed by the Commissioner Appeal on the said issue becomes a finding of fact. Thus, it cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 260-4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as there does not seems to be any substantial question of law, much less a question of law made out by the appellant. 5. Thus, the appeal fails and is accordingly rejected. 6. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SdA B.S. CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// q To, kam \ >. SECTION OFFICER 1 . The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-4, Hyderabad. 3. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward-13(3), Hyderabad. 4. One CC to SRI CH. SAMSON BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI A. RADHA KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:0211112023 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.148 of 2019 THE APPEAL IS REJECTED 91 AiE ()F )r o z ! l ts d.)c l$b \ \$\ 1 o H :rr p.1C + ct: \\ ,)