M/S TAYANA CONSULT PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/219/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01040728202105 January 2024Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court permitted the appellant's advocate to retire from the case. The Court noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the previous dismissal by the Tribunal for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The appellant's advocate sought to retire from the case, stating that the petitioner was not providing instructions or necessary details. The Tribunal had previously dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed as infructuous due to the appellant's non-prosecution and the advocate's withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DATED 07.05.2015 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE APPEAL OF

- 1 -

NC: 2024:KHC:825-DB ITA No. 219 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 219 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1.

M/S TAYANA CONSULT PVT LTD NO.3155/A, A-3, 11TH MAIN, BENGALURU – 560 042 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI SANTOSH PHILIPS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, SON OF PHILIPS …APPELLANT (BY SMT. POOJA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SHEETAL BORKAR,ADVOCATE PERMITTED TO RETIRE VIDE ORDER DATED 05.01.2024) AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 11(5), BMTC BUILDING, 80 FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 095 …RESPONDENT

THISADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE ABOVE ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 07.05.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.1609/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, B. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 07.05.2015 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IN ITA NO. 1609/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 AND C. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS.

Digitally signed by D HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

NC: 2024:KHC:825-DB ITA No. 219 of 2022

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

1.

Smt. Sheetal Borkar, learned counsel for the appellant is represented by Smt. Pooja Sharma, learned counsel. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated 15.11.2023 for retirement, which reads as follows: “The advocate for petitioner on record, humbly states that she is now not pursuing the case on behalf of petitioner, as the petitioner is not giving the instructions to proceed with the case and neither they providing us the details required. Consequently, the advocate for the petitioner hereby declares her withdrawal from the case, submitting a formal retirement memorandum. Additionally, she has no objections to the appellant’s appointment of a different attorney to represent the appellant’s interests in the matter”.

3.

Memo is placed on record. 4. Smt. Sheetal Borkar, the learned counsel, is permitted to retire from the case as sought for. 5. It is deemed appropriate to refer the order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.A.No.1609 and 1610/Bang/2014 relating to the assessment year 2007-2008 and 2005-2006. The aforesaid

- 3 -

NC: 2024:KHC:825-DB ITA No. 219 of 2022

impugned order has been challenged in this appeal by urging various grounds. In the impugned order, it is indicated that: “Even the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT V. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar V. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution”. 6. In view of the said status of the impugned order rendered by the Tribunal, it is deemed appropriate that this appeal be dismissed as having become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

AG, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

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 →