Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Agro Extractions Ltd., Zaheerabad. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

ITTA/807/2006HC TelanganaHBHC01056040200630 August 2023Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal for default and non-prosecution. The judgment notes that there was no representation on behalf of the appellant on the previous date of hearing and also on the current date, despite repeated calls. Consequently, the Court was left with no other option but to dismiss the appeal. No costs were awarded. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also ordered to stand closed. The specific grounds for the original assessment or appeals are not discussed as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by Shree Siddhi Vinayaka Agro Extractions Ltd. against an order of the Income Tax Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The assessment year in question is 1997-98. The appeal arises from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad, which in turn was preferred against an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1), Hyderabad. The appellant's counsel was absent on the previous date of hearing and also on the current date, despite repeated calls. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for default and non-prosecution, given the absence of the appellant's counsel on multiple hearing dates. This is a procedural issue concerning the conduct of the appeal. The appellant's side has not presented any arguments as their counsel is absent. The revenue's side has not presented any arguments as the appeal is being dismissed on procedural grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 3386 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I AXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY INCOME TA( TRIBUNAL APPEAL No: 807 of2006 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260A of the lncome Tax Act, '1961 arising out of the order of the lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad'Bench ' B ' (SMC) Hyderabad, in ITA No.384/Hyd/2004, for assessment Year 1997-98 dated 31- 1O-2OOO preferred against the Order of thg Commissioner of lncome Tax, (APPEALS)lV, Hyderabad, Appeal No.031 0/DC-3(1 )/ClT(A)-lV/2002-03,dated:05-01 - 2004, preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax 3(1), Hyderabad PAN/GIR No.SH-37/ AAFCS0362R, dated 28-01-2003. Between: Shree Siddhi Vinayaka Agro Extractions Ltd., ZaheerabaQ,, R"p, by its Managing Director Purshotta-m Palloed, S/o Late Sri Govardhanlal Palloed, aged about 50 years, Zaheerabad. ...Appellant AND 1 . Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle - 3(1 ), Hyderabad. ' ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. C. JAYASREE SARATHY and SIDDHARTH TOSHNIWAL(NoI Present) Counsel for Respondents: Ms. K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, SC FOR lT DEPT. The Court delivered the following:'JUDGMENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY I.T.T.A. No.8O7 of 2006 JUDGMENT:U,, , t toa't,t, Sn Jrrcrr.n p.seM NoSHyJ There is no representation on behalf of the appellant on the previous date of hearing. Yesterday a_lso, i.e., on 29.08.2023, there lr'as no representation on behalf of the appellant in spite of repeated cal1s being made which compelled us to adjourn the matter to to-day. Even to-day, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 2. Undcr given circumstances, we are left with no other option but to ciismiss the appeal fcr default as well as for non- prosecution. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for default as well as lor no n -prosccution. No costs. 4. Consequentl),, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall sland closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.S.GHIRANJEEVI JOTULREGISTRAR qD SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lncome-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ' B ' (SMC) Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax, (APPEALS)IV, Hyderabad' 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax 3(1), Hyderabad' 4. One CC to M/s C. JAYASREE SARATHY and Siddharth Toshwniwal, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, SC FOR lT DEPARTMENT IOPUCI \ r\ . tr:l- 6. Two CD Copies \ /'{ kam

I HIGH COURT DATED:30108t2023 1tlE STAIe:-:.\ ( ) $5 w!zts o() C) .bs * t :) JUDGMENT ITTA.No.807 of 2006 THE APPEAL !S DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT AS WELL AS FOR NON.PROSECUTION ?)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →