The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Textiles Assoication vs. Income Tax Officer [ Hqrs] Exemption

ITTA/388/2010HC TelanganaHBHC01061946201009 January 2026Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The court noted that the appellant's counsel was unable to contact the appellant and therefore had no instructions to proceed with the case. In these circumstances, the court found no option but to dismiss the petition for want of instructions. The right of the petitioner to move an appropriate revival petition was reserved in case the grievance still survived. The appeal was accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications were also closed. The judgment does not record any decision on the merits of the case or the specific grounds of appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Textiles Association (the appellant) against an order passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions). The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Hyderabad, had previously passed an order in I.T.A.No.88/Hyd/2008 dated 30.01.2009, which is the subject of this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount in dispute is not mentioned. The procedural history involves the appeal being listed before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable in the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Assessee's Contention: The appellant's counsel, Mr. Maneesh Mahinvith, stated that despite best efforts, the appellant could not be contacted and there was no response from the appellant's side. Consequently, the counsel pleaded no instructions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Mr. Vijhay K. Punna, Senior Standing Counsel for the IT Department, did not present any arguments as the appellant's counsel was unable to proceed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD ] FRIDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND T\/VENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HoNouRABLE ,*, ,rr#=oruDDALA cHALApA:rHr RAo BU MB (lncome Tax Tribunal Appea! under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act., 1961 against the order made in l.T.A.No.88ll1ydl2O08 Dated 30.01.2009 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunat, "B" Bench, Hydegabad prefened against the Order of the Director of lncome Tax (Exemptions) Hyderabad in F. N o. D I T( Ey 1 2A&80 c t2o2(OS) t2OO7 -Og Dated 20. 1 1 .ZOo7 ) Between: The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Textiles Association, Z-t-tgi4, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. ...APPELLANT AND Income Tax Officer I Hqrs].Exemption, O/o The Director of lncome Tax [Exemption] Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, i ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. ASSOCIATES MAHINVITH, REP. M/S CKR MANEESH Counsel for the Respondents: SRIVIJHAY K PUNNA SENIOR SC FOR IT DEPT The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

l \ IN TIIE HIC}H COTIRT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAD TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AIID THE HOII{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO ITTA No.38E of 2010 Between: The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Textiles Association, Secunderabad. Appellant And Income Tar: Offrcer (Hqrs) Exemption, Hyderabad. .Respondent JUDGME,NT: (per Hon'bte Sri Justice P'Sam Koshy) Mr.lvlaneesh Mahinvith, learned counsel representing IWs'CKR Associates, for the petitioner and Mr.Vijhay K.Punna, learned Senior Standing C)ounsel for the Income Tax Department, for the respondent' 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of best efforts, the petitioner could not be contacted and there is no response from the petitioner's side. In view of the salne, learned counsel for the petitioner submits ttrat at this juncture he is teft with no other option, but to plead no instructiolrs. 3. In the given factual circumstances, this Bench is left with no option but to dir;miss the petition for want of instructions. However, right of the petitioner.stands reserved to move appropriate revival petition in case if the grievancr: still survives. \ {

2 4. Accordingly, ttre Appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 6 SECTION OFFICER To, l. The 2. The 3. One 4. One 5. Two Ks/PSL !Lcome Tax Appellate Tribunal, ,,B" Bench, Hyderabad Director of lncome Tax (Exemptions) Hyderabad QQ to M/s CKR Associates ,AdvocaG (OpUCi - 33 [;'*yijhav K'Punna, Advociie tdCuq' I I \ \

HIGH COT'RT DATED:09/01 12026 JUDGMEN'T I.T.T.A.No.ii88 of 2C1A Dismissing the ITTA for HE 1 C) Non Prosecution. Without costs.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →