Crp/2044/2018 Of Sri. G.k. Chandrasekhar Reddy v. Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii Company Range-Ii
High Court
06 Aug 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Crp/2044/2018 Of Sri. G.k. Chandrasekhar Reddy v. Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii Company Range-Ii
Date of order
06 Aug 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Crp/2044/2018 Of Sri. G.k. Chandrasekhar Reddy v. Income Tax Recovery Officer-Ii Company Range-Ii, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed subjectto payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, out oF which, Rs.2,500/- to beremitted to the Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District andRs.2,500/- to be remitted to the Advocates Bar Association, RangaReddy District.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
,N THE HIGH COURI FOR
AI HYJ#EA8If;TE [OF TEL'ANGANA]
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND fWerrrrY-Or.ie
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
cIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO:20 440F 2018
Petition under Articre 227 0f the constitution of rndia aggrieved by the orderrndia aggrieved by the orderdated 07.02.2018 in r.A.No.1260 0f 2017 in o.s No.669 0f 20110n the fire of theCourt of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.Court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Between:
Sri. G.K. Chandrasekhar F"qCV-,.S/o.G. Thimma Reddy, ag_ed about 43 years,occupation. Kurnool District, Business. resioeni Andhia pradesh.o'r'ritrt-o. is,'oili.'N".'l-191. sBr 1st corony, Adoni,
,..PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF
AND
1lncome Tax Recovery Officer-ll gorypgly Range_ll, lV Ftoor, New Btock, RoomNo.404, 121. N.H.Ro-ad, Chennai - 600054.No.404, 121. N.H.Ro-ad, Chennai - 600054.
2Union of lndia, Secretary Department of Revenue, lVinistry of Frnance, NewDe lh i.De lh i.
3IGGI Resorts lnternational rlryteo, No.T-18-A, Alsa tr/al complex, 149, N,4ontiethRoad, Egmore, Chennai - 600008 represented by lts L/anagirig Oi'reclor [- ][-']Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600008 represented by lts L/anagirig Oi'reclor [- ][-']
4\ll/t lfe [Style Constructions, a ][Partnershipfirm ][having ][its ][office at ][H.No.6-2-42,]A.C.Guards, Hyderabad, represented by iis Ma naging" partner G.srinivasaReddyA.C.Guards, Hyderabad, represented by iis Ma naging" partner G.srinivasaReddy
..RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orderspassed in 1.A.No.1260 of 2017 in O.S.No.669 of 2011 dated 07.02.2018 on the fileof the court of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. P. REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: K. VASANTH RAO
The Court made the following: ORDER
i
..a
THE I-ION,BLE [B' VIJAYSEN ] crv tLR[ EV] [ PE] [ o,204][4][ of 2018]
ORDER:
This rev slon [is filed ][challenging ][the ][order dated ][07 ][02 2018 ][in]1.A.No.1260 [of ][2OL7 ][in ][O'S ][No ][669 ][of ][2011 ][passed ][by ][the]X Additional [Chief ][Judge, City Civil ][Court' ][Hyderabad' whereunder ][an]application [filed ][seeking ][condonation ][of ][delay ][in ][filing ][the ][petitlon ][to]restore the sult [was dismissed']
2. The petitioner/ [plaintiff instituted ][a ][suit ][in ][O'S No'669 of]2011 for declaration [and injunction under ][Section ][281 read ][with ][Rule]of the [Second Schedule ][of ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][against ][the]11(6) respondents herein. [The ][suit ][was dismissed was ][default on ][26 ]['10 ]['2017]for non-appearance [of ][the ][plaintiff and ][his counsel' ][An ][application ][in]LA.No.1260 of 2Ol7 [was ][filed ][seeking ][to ][condone ][the ][delay ][of ][three]days in filing a restoration [petition ][under Order ] [Rule ][9 ] [and ][for]setting aside dismissal order [dated ][26 ][10'2O)'7.]
3, [4r. Sunitha lvlondal, learned [counsel representing ][It4r' ][A'P]Reddy, learned counsel for the [petitioner, submitted ][that ][there ][was]death in lhe family of the [petitioner/plaintiff. ][It ][was stated ][in ][the]affidavit filed in support of the condone [delay petition ][that ][his ][family]member, Mr, G. Kuber Reddy, died on [25.10.2017 ][and ][as ][instructed]by the petitioner/plaintiff, the advocate appearing [on hls ][behalf ][filed]an adjournment [petition ]on 26.L0.2017. [However, ][the ][learned trial]ludge did not consider the same and dismissed [the ][suit ][for ][default.]
4, As it appears from the record, there is [no ][counter ][filed ][by the]respondents before the Court below. Even in this [revision, ][there is ][no]appearance [,:n ]behalf of the respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. [Venkat ][Ram]
))
To,
4, As it appears from the record, there is [no ][counter ][filed ][by the]respondents before the Court below. Even in this [revision, ][there is ][no]appearance [,:n ]behalf of the respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. [Venkat ][Ram]
))
To,
Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. K. Raj, Reddy, learnedstanding counsel for the respondent standing counsel for the respondent No.1, submjtted that orders maymaybe passed on meritslvlr. K. Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for therespondent No.3, stated that the petitionerwas not d ilige nt inpursujng the suit before the Court below.However, the Iea rn edcounsel does not dispute the fact that the application for adjournmentof the case was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on 26.10.2017.of the case was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on 26.10.2017.
5. Though conditional order was passed by the Court belowdirecting the plaintiff to proceed with trial on 26.10.2017, it is a matterof record that the petition erlp la intiff, through his advocate, filed aseparate application on 26.10.2017 for adjournment of the case citingreason of death of one of his family member. In such circumstances,the Court below should have taken a lenient view in condoning thedelay of three days in filling the restoration petition. This Court is ofthe opinion that non-appearance of the petitione r/pla intiFf was notdeliberate, in view of the fact that there was a death in the family.
In view of the above, the civil revision petition is allowed subjectto payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, out oF which, Rs.2,500/- to beremitted to the Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District andRs.2,500/- to be remitted to the Advocates Bar Association, RangaReddy District. Pending miscellaneous [petitions, ]if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/. N. CHANDRA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,TRUE COPY//LaoSECTION OFFICER
1. The X Additional [Chief ][Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad']
2. One CC to Sri [A. ][P. Reddy, ][Advocate ]
3. One CC to [Sri ][K. ][Vasanth Rao' Advocate ]
4. Two CD CoPies5. One SPare [CoPY]gbr5. One SPare [CoPY]gbr
\
HIGH
DATED: [06/08/2021]
ORDERCRP.No.2044 of 2018
ALLOWING THE CRP
6
ttE5 [IAle][ o]o-(_roo02 [sEPt0tl]>*/\(v\DF3pA1
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.