N GURUPADAPPA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the need arises.
What were the facts?
The appellant's counsel informed the court that the appellant had expired and the legal representatives could not be traced. Consequently, there were no instructions to prosecute the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal can be prosecuted in the absence of the appellant and with no instructions from legal representatives.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.31 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
N.GURUPADAPPA SARASWATHI NO. 322,1ST BLOCK, 5TH CROSS, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI A.SHANKAR, ADV. A/W SRI LAVA, ADV.)
AND:
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(2), 3RD FLOOR, LIC BUILDING, SAMPIGE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 003.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.)
2 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:17.01.2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.1238/BANG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 2005 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BENGALURU IN I.T.A.NO.1238/BANG/2009 DATED 17.09.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE – A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIVE AND EQUITY.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri. A. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M. Lava, learned Counsel for the appellant. Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that he has no instructions to prosecute this appeal as the appellant has expired on 17.11.2015 and he is unable to trace out the legal representatives of the deceased appellant.
3 2. In view of the aforesaid submission, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to revive the same, if need arises.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
Cs/
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 →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026