Case LawHigh Court › Wp/12601/2005 Of Smt. Y. Prameela v. The...

Wp/12601/2005 Of Smt. Y. Prameela v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax No. Iv

High Court 22 Jun 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/12601/2005 Of Smt. Y. Prameela v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax No. Iv
Date of order
22 Jun 2005
Assessment year(s)
1969-70, 1985-86
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Wp/12601/2005 Of Smt. Y. Prameela v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax No. Iv, the High Court (2005) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Commissioner of The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 12601 of 2005 Between:Smt. Y. Prameela, W/o. Late Yadaiah Goud,H.No. 4-8-599, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax No. IV, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (3), Hyderabad. 3 The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Hyderabad. 4 The Tax Recovery Officer-5, O/o. the Addl. /Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax,Range-5, Church Building, Ramkot, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writof Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the petitionerswaiver application filed under section 220 (2 A) of Income Tax Act dt. 7-10-2002through his order dt. 3-2-2005 in file No. H. Qrs.4/220(2) 2002-03 as illegal, arbitrarywithout authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Act and in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and set aside the same and declare that the Petitioner is entitled for adjustment of Rs.3,50,000/- recovered pursuant to sale of the immovableproperty of the petitioners husband in the year 1989 itself and the petitioner isentitled refund of the excess amount retained with the department together withinterest till date and also declare that the Petitioner is liable for interest only on theoutstanding tax arrears as per the orders of the Hon'ble ITAT and also declare thatthe Petitioner is not liable for any interest much less Rs. 1,15,151/- as claimed by the2nd respondent dt. 14-12-1999 and any further interest for the subsequent periodsand pass such other order or orders this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BHASKAR REDDY VEMIREDDYCounsel for the Respondents: MR.J.V.PRASAD(SC FOR INCOME TAX) The Court made the following : O R D E R (Per the Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, ACJ): Issue notice. Sri J.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents takes notice. With the agreement of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is disposed of atthis stage as it is admitted that the impugned order has not given any reasons. It appears that the petitioner had moved an application seeking waiver of interestunder Section 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act. The application was kept pending forthree years and after that on 03-02-2005, the following order was communicated tothe petitioner. “With reference to your petition dated 07-10-2002 requestingfor waiver of interest u/s. 220 (2A) for the AY 1969-70 to AY1985-86 in the case of Sri Y.Yadaiah Goud, you are herebyinformed that after due consideration of the facts of the case,the petition is rejected.” The order does not disclose any reasons for rejecting the application. As such, theorder impugned is quashed and the respondents are directed to pass fresh ordersafter hearing the petitioner and give reasons. Pending disposal of the application,the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ (Bilal Nazki, ACJ) 22[nd] June, 2005 __________________ (G.Chandraiah,J) Note:Issue C.C in one week (b/o) vrn To 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax No. IV, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (3), Hyderabad. 3 The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Hyderabad. 4 The Tax Recovery Officer-5, O/o. the Addl. /Jt. Commissioner of The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ (Bilal Nazki, ACJ) 22[nd] June, 2005 __________________ (G.Chandraiah,J) Note:Issue C.C in one week (b/o) vrn To 1 The Commissioner of Income Tax No. IV, Ayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (3), Hyderabad. 3 The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Hyderabad. 4 The Tax Recovery Officer-5, O/o. the Addl. /Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax,Range-5, Church Building, Ramkot, Hyderabad. 5 Two C.D copies.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan