Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Green Fire Agri Commodities Limited - 2014-LL-0724-53

Citation	2014-LL-0724-53
Appellant Name	Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad
Respondent Name	Green Fire Agri Commodities Limited
Court	HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	24/07/2014
Assessment Year	2006-07
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	export proceed • erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue
Bot Summary:	516/Hyderabad/2013 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07 on the following suggested questions of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in law in setting aside the order passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 when the subject assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and liable to be revised under Section 263 of the Act 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the subject assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue nor erroneous as the Export proceeds have been brought into India within the extended time stipulated by Reserve Bank of India relying on the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Foreign Exchange Management Act when there is no such provision under the Income Tax Act 1961 In this case, the Tribunal on fact found that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner was not legally undertaken and the Assessing Officer has followed the correct position of law. After appreciation of fact, the Tribunal also found that the issue was covered by the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of HCL EAI Services Ltd. v. Deputy 1 Commissioner of Income Tax and the same squarely applies to this case. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner was set aside. We are of the view that the rule of consistency and the legal principles have been followed by the Tribunal. It is not the case before us that the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal has been upset as yet.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.458 OF 2014 DATED: 24.07.2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad Appellant And M/s.Green Fire Agri Commodities Limited Respondent HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.458 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 27.11.2013 passed in I.T.A.No.516/Hyderabad/2013 in relation to assessment year 2006-07 on following suggested questions of law. 1. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in setting aside order passed by jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of Income Tax Act 1961 when subject assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue and liable to be revised under Section 263 of Act? 2. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that subject assessment order was not prejudicial to interest of Revenue nor erroneous as Export proceeds have been brought into India within extended time stipulated by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) relying on circular issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA Act) when there is no such provision under Income Tax Act 1961? In this case, Tribunal on fact found that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of Income tax Act, 1961 by Commissioner was not legally undertaken and Assessing Officer has followed correct position of law. After appreciation of fact, Tribunal also found that issue was covered by decision of Bangalore Tribunal in case of HCL EAI Services Ltd. v. Deputy [1] Commissioner of Income Tax and same squarely applies to this case. Therefore, element of prejudice to interest of Revenue is missing. Accordingly, order of Commissioner was set aside. We are of view that rule of consistency and legal principles have been followed by Tribunal. It is not case before us that decision of Bangalore Tribunal has been upset as yet. We therefore dismiss this appeal having found no element of law involved in this appeal. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 24th JULY, 2014. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni [1] (2013) 35 taxmann.com 146 Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Green Fire Agri Commodities Limited

Metadata

Judgment