M/S. REGENCY CERAMICS LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

ITTA/529/2012HC TelanganaHBHC01044634201218 December 2025Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO4 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in view of the appellant's counsel pleading no instructions because the appellant is untraceable and uncontactable, the court is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The court granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal with an appropriate application and justifiable reasons, provided the grievance still survives. The appeal was accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No. 529 of 2012, filed by M/s. Regency Ceramics Ltd. (the appellant) against an order dated September 21, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A'. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2000-2001. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Hyderabad. The appeal was listed for hearing before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that despite best efforts, the appellant has not been contactable and is not traceable, leading the counsel to plead no instructions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal can proceed when the appellant's counsel has pleaded no instructions due to the appellant being untraceable? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) The appellant's counsel, representing M/s. CKR Associates, informed the court that the appellant, M/s. Regency Ceramics Ltd., is not traceable and has not been in contact. Consequently, the counsel pleaded no instructions. The revenue did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on the procedural issue raised by the appellant's counsel.

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 THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 529 OF 2012 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 2604 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the order dated 21-09-2007 in lrA No. 897lHydt2oo4 (Asst. year 2ooo-2001) on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad. Between: M/s. Regency Ceramics Ltd. N.N.House, Chirag Ali Lane., Abids, Hyderabad Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Dr.G.N.Naidu. ...eppeUeruT AND The lncome Tax Officer, tNard 2 (2), Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI D. BALU, REPRESENTING M/S. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents: SRI BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SENtOR SC rNcoME TAX) The Court made the following ORDER: )

IN THE IIIGH COT]RT FORTHE STATE OF T]] LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM I OSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO ITTA.No.529 of 2Ol2 Dated: 18.12.2025 Between: M/s.Regency Ceramics Ltd., N.N.House, Chirag Ati Lane, Abids, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Dr.G.N.Naidu ...Appellant AND The Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2), Hyderabad. . .Respondent ORDER' (per IIon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Mr.D.Balu. leamed counsel for the appellarLl representing IWs.CKR Associates, submits that in spite of best efforts the appellant has not been contacting nor is he traceable and, thtr:fore. Ieamed counsel for thc appellant pleads no instructions.

\!-\ +:!(tn .\ 2 2. In view of the same, this Bench is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution with liberty to the appellant to revive the same with an appropriate application with justifiable reasons, that too in case if the grievance still survives. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed for want ofprosecution There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closcd //TRUE COPY// SD/- N SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, W 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench "B" Hyderabad 2. One CC to M/s. CKR ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (SENIOR SC INCOME TAX) Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies kut/PSL

HIGH COURT DATEO:181'|212025 ORDER |TTA.No.S29 of 2012 DISMISSING THE IT'I'A WITHOTJT COSTS -<i., ji' Dc- . . -. l';-')- l:-l " . --:.' .--.--.'". \ t ,( ( t) ), a b .,\ \1/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →