Somisetty Venkataramaiah [HUF] vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Tribunal Appeal for want of prosecution. This means the appellant failed to appear or present their case before the court.
What were the facts?
The appellant, Somisetty Venkataramaiah (HUF), filed an appeal before the High Court against an order of the Income Tax Tribunal. The appeal was listed for hearing in the weekly list.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the appellant's failure to prosecute their appeal before the High Court, leading to its dismissal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No. 175 of 2008 Appeal under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad dated 22/06/2007 passed in M.A. No.35/Hyd/07 in I.T.A No. 827/Hyd/2002 for the Assessment Year 1986-87 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-IV), Hyderabad dated 09/07/2002 passed in Appeal No.590/Antp/CIT(a)-IV/1999-00 for the Assessment Year 1986-87 preferred against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Inv), Circle-1, Ananthapur passed in PAN/GIR No. V-203/1986-87, dated 30/03/1993 for the Assessment Year 1986-87. Between: Somisetty Venkataramaiah (HUF), H.No.62/234, Fort, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh ...Appellant AND
A The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kurnool. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya (NP) Counsel for the Respondent: Standing Counsel for Income Tax The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No. 175 of 2008 ORDER: - No representation for the appellant. The matter is listed in the weekly list. The matter pertains to the year 2008. 2. In view of the above, the Income Tax Tribunal Appeal 3. is dismissed for “want of prosecution”. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. SD/- P VENKATA RAMANA JOINT REGISTRAR CP //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-A, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-IV), Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Inv), Circle-1, Ananthapur, AnanthapurBfetrict. 4. One CC to Sri A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Advocate. High Court of A.P., ,.Amaravati (OPUC) 5. One CC to the Standing Counsel for Income Tax, High Court of A.P. [OPUC] 6. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of A.P.at Amaravathi. 7. Three CD Copies. MSR sree
HIGH COURT DATED:10/11/2023 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.175 of 2008 ^ c ^ DISMISSING THE I.T.T.A. FOR WANT F OF PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS 1 1
More judgments on Section 260(A)
- Rijwan vs Income Tax OfficerITA/3/202023 Sept 2026
- Manoj Gupta vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…ITA/243/202618 Sept 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, JammuITA/20/20142 Apr 2026
- Late Shri Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar vs The Income Tax OfficerITA/16/202526 Feb 2026
- Shri K. Samba Siva Rao ( HUF), Hyd vs I.T.O., HydITTA/181/20109 Feb 2026
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