AVANTI FEEDS LTD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/38/2009HC TelanganaHBHC01014148200907 January 2025Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appellant had not appeared on the current date, nor on December 20, 2024. Based on this consistent non-appearance, the Court concluded that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court also directed that any pending miscellaneous applications would stand closed and made no order as to costs. The specific grounds of the original appeal and the merits of the assessment order were not considered or decided by the High Court due to the dismissal on procedural grounds. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No. 38 of 2009, filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal challenges an order dated January 23, 2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-'B', Hyderabad, for Assessment Year 2001-02. This order was preferred against an order dated September 10, 2004, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - II, Hyderabad, which in turn was against an Assessment Order dated March 26, 2004. The assessee is Avanti Feeds Ltd., and the respondent is the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. The appellant's counsel was Sri M.V. Ramachandra Rao, and the respondent's counsel was Mr. J.V. Prasad, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax. The High Court noted that the appellant had not appeared on previous dates, including December 20, 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable in light of the appellant's consistent non-appearance? (Question of procedure/law) The appellant, Avanti Feeds Ltd., was represented by Sri M.V. Ramachandra Rao. The respondent, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, was represented by Mr. J.V. Prasad. The High Court observed that the appellant's counsel had not appeared on multiple occasions, including the current date and a previous date on December 20, 2024. The Court inferred from this consistent absence that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The revenue, through its counsel, was present and ready to argue the case. No specific arguments were recorded for either side as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 34181 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO lNcoME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 38 of 2009 Appeal filed under Section 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 against the Order dated 23-01-2009 passed in |.T.A.No.1170/Hydl04 for Assessment year 2OO1-02 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench-'B', Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated 10-09-2004 passed in ITA No.0065/ClT(Ay04- 05 on the file of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll, Hyderabad preferred against the Assessment Order dated 26-03-2004 passed in P.A.N./G.l.R. No.AABCA7365E on the file of the lncome Tax Department. Between: Avanti Feeds Ltd.,6-3-658, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082 ...APPELLANT AND Dy. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT \ Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.V. Ramachandra Rao(No Representation) Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. J.V. Prasad, (Sr. Standing Counsel for lncome Tax) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.38 of 2OO9 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble ttrc Chief Justice AIok Aradhe) None for the appellant Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department for the respondent. 2. None had appeared on behalf of the appeJlant even on 20.r2.2024 3. It appears the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the aPPeal. 4. Th,: appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. Miscella:reous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There r;hal1 be no order as to costs. edl-a.v.s.s.c.s.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1. The lncome 1-ax Appellate Tribunal' Bench-'B" Hyderabad' 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -ll' Hyderabad' 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax' Circle 1(1)' Hyderabad 4. One CC to Sri M.V Ramachandra Rao, Advocate [OPUC] ll , l\L--- V SECTION OFFICER To,

'v 5. One CC to Mr. J.V. Prasad (Sr- Standing Counsel for lncome Tax) [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies kam/ghw /

HIGH COURT DATED:07 tO1t2O2S \ JUDGMENT ITTA.No.38 of 2009 THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION .o€@ w ,il(e5 \ 3 (liF- s r4 14- o ( 2025 t_D I l-r 10 | r za a/ * :-sF4ic\rf--o \1 i i j €

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →