Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad v. Siva Prasad Reddy Buchepalli

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

ITTA 104/2024 concerned Revenue’s challenge against Siva Prasad Reddy Buchepalli to the Tribunal’s 25 September 2023 order in ITA 301/Hyd/2023 for AY 2018-19.

Source: PDF p.1, caption and prayer

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

Revenue counsel submitted that the tax effect was below Rs.2 crore and requested withdrawal under Circular 9/2024 dated 17 September 2024, reserving restoration if the case fell within its exceptions.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraph 1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The Court granted the liberty requested and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, expressly leaving the question of law open.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraphs 2–3

4. OUTCOME

There was no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications were closed. No exception or underlying substantive tax ground was adjudicated.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraphs 2–3

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Central-charge identification does not establish an exception

The appellant is the Principal Commissioner, Central, but the order does not find that this designation itself brings the case within any circular exception. The restoration reservation must be read with its express condition, not converted into a finding absent from the order.

Source: PDF pp.1–2, caption and paragraphs 1–3

The open question prevents a merits reading

The Court expressly left the question of law open while accepting Revenue’s litigation-limit submission. This is a procedural endpoint to this appeal, not a precedent resolving the tax issue in favour of either side.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraphs 1–3

Keep the assessment-year and Tribunal identity together

The source identifies AY 2018-19 and ITA 301/Hyd/2023. Those particulars distinguish this withdrawal from similar orders and are necessary to trace the undisturbed Tribunal disposition or any later application for restoration.

Source: PDF p.1, prayer