Wp/14818/2005 Of G. Venkateswarlu v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
13 Jun 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/14818/2005 Of G. Venkateswarlu v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
13 Jun 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/14818/2005 Of G. Venkateswarlu v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Decision: Having heard the Counsel on either side and also perusedthe material on record instead of going into the merits of the case,we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct therespondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on thebasis of the said documents which are sought to...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAOAND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No. 14818 of 2005
Date: 15.06.2006
Between:
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao)
G. Venkateshwarlu.
… Petitioner
and
1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad-1and two others.
… Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao)
Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner and also Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents and at their request themain writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.
The petitioner herein filed this writ petition inter alia seekingto assail the orders of the Tribunal rejecting his application filedunder Section 19 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1051 of 2004 dated 04.04.2005 and raises several groundsespecially on the aspect that in spite of the fact that he hasadduced substantial cases of evidence including the letters dated21.03.2001, 11.02.2002, 12.08.2003 and 19.11.2003 to support hiscase, however, the same was not properly considered and thesame was rejected.
Having heard the Counsel on either side and also perusedthe material on record instead of going into the merits of the case,we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct therespondent to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on thebasis of the said documents which are sought to be placedreliance and pass orders accordingly.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting thepetitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of threeweeks from today along with the copies of those documents onwhich, the petitioner seeks to place reliance and the respondentshall consider the same and pass orders on merits in accordancewith law, within four weeks thereof, uninfluenced by any of thefindings given by the Tribunal in any of these proceedings.
____________________
B. PRAKASH RAO, J
Date: 15.06.2006
______________________________
RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J
MRKR
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.