SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found that the ITAT had indeed considered the grounds raised by the assessee in its original order, contrary to the assessee's claim in the miscellaneous application. As the Tribunal had addressed the said grounds, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's decision to dismiss the recall application.
What were the facts?
The assessee's original appeal for AY 2009-10 was dismissed by the ITAT. Subsequently, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application before the ITAT, seeking recall of the dismissal order on the contention that specific grounds of the original appeal were not adjudicated. The ITAT dismissed this miscellaneous application.
What were the issues?
Whether the ITAT erred in dismissing the assessee's miscellaneous application for recall, specifically regarding the alleged non-adjudication of certain grounds in the original appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
None explicitly mentioned
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
APHC010455602024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 34/2025 Between: 1. SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA, . OF LATE RAMESWARLAL GUPTA, PROP VINAYAKA TRADERS, D.NO. 75-7-6/1A, NAGARJUNA STREET, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 012
...APPELLANT AND 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, Ward-1 (2), C.R. Buildings, M.G. Road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPONDENT Appeal under section _______ against ordersPleased to prayed that the above order of the ITAT in M.A.NO.38/VIZ/2022 in ITA. NO.78/VIZ/2020, dt. 13.6.2024 read with order in ITA NO. 78/VIZ/20.dt. 10.6.2022 for the A.Y.2009-10 may be ordered to be QUASHED in-limine and/or the same may be remitted back to the ITAT, VSP for DENOVO ADJUDICATION Of the issues urged in the Original appeal in Form No.36 and that of M.A. cited SUPRA, so as to be in consonance with the mandatory provisions contained in the enacted law and also judge made law. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 708 days in filing the ITTA against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in M.A. 38A/iz/2022 in I.T.A.No. 78A/iz/2020 dt: 13.06.2024 for the Assessment year 2009-2010 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 153 days in representing the instant Petition bearing .No. 34 of 2025, dated 15.10.2024 and pass such Counsel for the Appellant: 1. B V S CHALAPATI RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Y N VIVEKANANDA
The Court made the following judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
The appellant herein had approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by way of ITA No.78/Viz/2020, for the assessment year 2009-10, being aggrieved by the order of assessment passed against the appellant. This appeal came to be dismissed on 10.06.2022. Thereafter, the appellant moved this Court by way of ITTA No.32 of 2025. This appeal came to be dismissed by this Court on 27.01.2026, on the ground of inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal. 2. The appellant, even before the said appeal came to be filed before this Court, had moved MA No.38/Viz/2022, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking recall of the order passed in ITA No.78/Viz/2020, dated 10.06.2022. The ground for such recall was that, the Tribunal had not adjudicated the grounds No.2, 3, 4 & 5 of the original appeal. This application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 13.06.2024. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant approached this Court by way of the present IITA. 3. Sri B.V.S.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that, the Tribunal had not considered the said grounds earlier in the original appellate order and had refused to consider these grounds in the miscellaneous application filed before the Tribunal. He would submit that, the manner in which the miscellaneous application had been
dismissed would show that the Tribunal had not considered any of the issues raised by the appellant. 4. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal would show that, the Tribunal had considered the contention of the petitioner that, grounds No.2 to 5 had not been dealt with and rejected the said contention by extracting parts of the original order showing that such grounds had been considered and rejected. 5. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with this matter, inasmuch as the Tribunal had considered the said grounds. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________
T.C.D. SEKHAR, J
Dt.17.02.2026 DSB
146
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR
IITA.No.34 of 2026 Dated 17.02.2026
U DSB
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026