M/S.Mallikarjuna Rice ... vs The Income Tax Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 790 Tel

          THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                             AND
                  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
                                  I.T.T.A.No.82 of 2006
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)

        Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the

appellant; and Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income

Tax Department for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the

appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly

'the Act' hereinafter) against the order dated 28.07.2005 passed by

the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B,

Hyderabad (briefly 'Tribunal' hereinafter) in I.T.A.

No.784/Hyd/2004 for the assessment year 2000-2001.

3. Though the appeal was admitted on 14.03.2006, no

substantial question of law was framed. However, from the memo

of appeal, we find that appellant has proposed the following two

questions as substantial questions of law:

a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in sustaining the reopening of ::2::

the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 particularly when the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act ?

b) Whether the amount of Rural Development Cess reimbursed by the Food Corporation of India in accordance with the provisions of A.P.Rural Development Cess Act, 1996 is a trade receipt and is assessable as income when the assessee did not debit the liability to pay cess to the P&L Account ?

4. Following our decision rendered today in I.T.T.A.No.128 of

2006, we answer this appeal in favour of the assessee and against

the revenue.

5. Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 15.02.2023 LUR