Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Infotech Infin & Trading Private Limited
[Citation -2017-LL-0821-23]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0821-23 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad |
| Respondent Name | Infotech Infin & Trading Private Limited |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 21/08/2017 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | question of law • unexplained credit |
| Bot Summary: | RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: MS. K. MAMATHA COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR. BADRI V. REDDI THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2 THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN THE HON BLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI ITTA No.83 of 2017 JUDGMENT: The revenue has come up with the above appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, primarily, raising only one question of law namely, as to whether the findings of the tribunal were perverse or not. A look at the common order of the tribunal would show that the assessee placed reliance upon the order of the tribunal in two other cases namely, VHAL Industries Limited and Padmini Corporation Ltd. in ITA.Nos. The tribunal observed in para 6 as follows: 6. On perusal of the order of the Tribunal in the case of VHAL, we find that the facts in the present group of cases are similar to those in that case. The learned Departmental Representative 3 also could not bring to our notice any material to contradict the findings of the CIT. Of course, in the case of VHAL, the Tribunal did not have the benefit of examining the remand report. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in the case of VHAL, we delete the additions in all the cases made on account of unexplained credits. If the facts of a particular case are found similar to the facts of another case already decided and no distinguishing features are highlighted, the tribunal could come only to the conclusion that it did. |