The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Unicorn Agrotech Limited

t 33861 rN .rHE HIGH couRl FoRTHEi*tst ot "tANGANA MoNDAY, rHE #SIJJ [l5Jiff']l'3:",5IJEMBER lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the lncome Tax Act' 1961 arising out of the order of the lncome-tax Appellate Tribunal' Hyderabad Bench ' A' Hyderabad, in l.T.A'No'863/Hyd/2004' dated 31-08-2006 Assessment Year 2001- 2002preferredagainsttheorderoftheCommissioneroflncomeTax(Appeals)-lV, Hyderabad, Appeal No.02lAC-3(4yClT(A)-lV/04{5 dated:19-08-2004' preferred againsttheorderoftheAssistantCommissioneroflncomeTaxCircle.3(4)' Hyderabad PAN/GIR No. AAACU 2782 J MOg dated 12-03-2004' PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRt JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A' LA(MI NARAYANA LT T.A"No:131 of 2007 Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax-lll, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND [I/s.Unicorn Agrotech Limited, 1-7-139/3, S.D.Road, Secunderabad - 500 003. ...Respondent counsel for the Appeltant: SRt J.v. PRASAD, sc FoR tT DEPARTMENT Counsel for the Respondent: SRt S. RAVI The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I

LAXMI NARAYANA I.T.T.4. No.13l ot20o7 MENT lper Hott b[c Srt,]tL:;tte P.SAM KOljH1) Hcard Sri J. V. [)rasar the appellant. c' Icarned Senior Standing counsel appearing for THE EON,BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSIrY - AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. 2. Thrs appcai uncier gs6116;1 ,260A of the Income Tax Ac been preferred by the Revenue as thc appellant agarnst the b,r, thc Income Tax Appellate Tribunai, t, 1961, has orCer dated Hyderabad 31,08.2006 passect llench Il. I {,r.cit:r.:r Lari 200t 2002 Ilt I l.{.No.863/lli,cl!2004 for thc Assessmenr year 3 cenlral Roard ol' I)irer:t Trtxes [c]Ri)T) has issued circular No. l,r. of 20i9 (it.08.OtJ.20 19. :rrncni.lilg rhe prcyroLls Circular No.3 of 2OitJ dt. i I-07.20 18, br lrrthcr cnhancing Lhe raonctary limits for fiIinq appeals by thc Income Ta-r Dcpirrrmc.L bcli.,.. Lirt: inr,-ome Tax Appellate Tribunals. High Courts and Suprt'rnc Corrr i as a rlcasure for reducing litigation. In paragraph 2 of tlre saic.l (_lrrr:ul:lr-. rr,e find ttrat the monetarv limit hxed lor filing an appeal beforc thc Ihgh (]ort11 ls Ils I O0 crore. 4. In thc instant:r;rp<:al ltrx cilt:ct is rvell below the monetary lirnir. 5. Therctirre. thc.pP.al iilcrl t,_r, thc l)..part(rcnt is dismissed in terms oI the albresard cirt;ul:rr N0. i'i ol 201() d1.08.08.2019. Llowevcr, if tLre appeati Comes lvithir thc c\cc|'rL\il lllr''i'r i):1ra!;r ilph 1O oi (lirt:ular No 3 oi 20l8' tL

2 would be open to the Income 'la-x Department to seek revival of the appeal No order as to costs 6. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ) I I I //TRUE COPY// SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JolNr REGfTRAR Tlv SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The lncome{ax Appellate Tribunal' ff VOer-alq!.Q9nch' A' Hvderabad i. iii; a;;itiioner'of lncome rax (Ap-peals)-l-v' HYderabad' 3. The Assistant Commissionei"iil;;; Tax C]rcle-3(41 Hvderabad ;. ci;.;i',; aiiJv. pnnsio, sc ron n^oepARrMENr [oPUCl ;. o;; aa io snr s. RAVI, Advocate [oPUC] 6. Two CD Copies kam,tr-

HIGH COURT DATED:2510912023 JUDGMENT !TTA.No.131 of 2007 THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED g q*o\ $ 1416 'rrtt ,\s .) (J I E ilou 2U8 a') 2 L)I * ]t ri. '.;611i;il YN-__- -{ro\t>