PCIT Vs Vinod Ojha (Telangana High Court)
Summary ; The Telangana High Court considered an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad, in ITA No.1231/Hyd/2024 relating to the assessment year 2016-17. The Revenue principally contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the amendment introduced to the Income Tax Act, 1961, through the proviso to Section 147A by the Finance Act, 2026. The High Court observed that the Tribunal had passed the impugned order in November 2025, well before the amendment was placed before Parliament. It further noted that, on the date the Tribunal decided the matter, there were numerous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court governing the issue and laying down the applicable legal position. Accordingly, the Court held that the Tribunal’s findings could not be regarded as contrary to the law as it then existed or contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law for consideration. Consequently, it rejected the Revenue’s appeal, made no order as to costs, and directed that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr.Kamasani Sudhakar Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, for the appellant and perused the record.
2. The present is the appeal which has been preferred by the Revenue assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad-‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad, in ITA.No.1231/Hyd/2024, for the assessment year 2016-2017.
3. The substantial grounds raised for challenge in the present appeal are primarily on the ground that the Tribunal ought to have considered the amendment brought to the Income Tax Act, 1961, under the proviso to Section 147A vide the Finance Act, 2026. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order in instant case itself one which was passed in November, 2025, that is much, before the Amendment bill was placed before the Parliament. Further, on the date, when the Tribunal had decided the matter, there were 100s of matters of the jurisdictional High Court governing the issue and laying down the applicable legal position.
4. In view of the same, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be either held to be contrary to law as it then existed nor can it be said to be contrary to the evidence on record.
5. In view of the same, we do not find any substantial question of law for consideration in the present appeal.
6. Therefore, the Appeal stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
