N GURUPADAPPA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/31/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01017804201118 March 2020Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

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?

Section 260-A

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/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →