M/s. Kanumuri Holdings Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESOAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANAALISHETTY INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 568 OF 2006 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260 of the lncome Tax Act, against the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'B', Hyderabad in ITA No.1247lHYDl2O03, for assessment Year 2000-01 dated 22.06.2006 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeals-|, Hyderabad, Appeal No. 0011/CC-1, HYD/C|T(A)-1103-04 dated 10.11.2003, preferred against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome{ax Central Circle -1, Hyderabad, PAN/GlR No. K-1IDCIT/CC-1 dated 07.03.2003 Between: M/s. Kanumuri Holdings Private Limited, Plot No.30-A Road No.1, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033 rep., by its Director K. Raghu Rmakrishna Raju S/o. K.V.S.Suryanarayana Raju, aged ,Oor, ...O#=aaififlt AND Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Central Circle l, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT l.A NO: I OF 2006(ITTAMP. NO: 632 OF 2006) 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 to stay the recovery of Rs.13,1 1 ,1591 being the balance outstanding demand of tax for assessment year 2000-0'l and interest from the petitioner till disposal of the appeal by this Hon'ble court. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. PARTY lN PERSON(Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent :SRl K. MAMATA The Court made the following: ORDER

.I'HE IION'BLE SITI,IUSTI(]I' P.SAM KOSHY ANt) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSI'ICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY ITTA No. 568 ol'2006 J U D G M E N T:Qter tlon'ble Siri ./u.trit.c p"SAM KOSHy) When the matter u,as last taken up lo- hcaring. we have adjourned thc matter and directcd to be taken under the czLption ..lor dismissal,.. 2. 'foday also when thc lnauer is taken up hearing, inspite of repeated calls, there is no rcpresentation on behalf clthe appellant. It ts noticed that therc is no representatio. on bohaI of appt:lant on previous date of hearing r.c.. on I3.09.2023 3 ln vierv of thc saruc. *'c are crnstraint to crisrriss the Appeal fbr r,vant of' prosecution and the i,tcri.r reliclgranted cirrlicr also stands vacated. 4 Accordirgly. this Appeal is crisrnissed [br n.n-prosecution. No order as to costs closed As a sequel, miscellancous applications pending if any, shall stand To, sd/_ K. sRtNtvASA RAO JOrNr REGTFTRAR //TRUE COPY// ti SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tri)unal, Hyderabad Bench ,8,, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner of lncome Tax Appeals-|, Hyderabad, 3. The Deputy Commissioner of lncome-tax Central Circte _1, Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRl. PARTY tN PERSON, Artvocate [OpUC] 5. One CC to SRl. K MAMATA, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies Pntc,, DL

HIGH COURT DATED:19/09/2023 ORDER ITTA.No.568 of 2006 DISMISSED FOR NON.PROSECUTION (t 1 i'|0\J "7 !','',.',. ,t'.. -) '.a_iI \..' ^,. [?3 t L :. -../ \.. P \. -.-._.'- @t*., =x\ro\>a' .1't-