Case LawHigh Court › Wp/4229/1993 Of K. Nageswara Rao v. The...

Wp/4229/1993 Of K. Nageswara Rao v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

High Court 09 Feb 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/4229/1993 Of K. Nageswara Rao v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Date of order
09 Feb 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/4229/1993 Of K. Nageswara Rao v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.H.S. ANSARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.CH.SURYA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4229 of 1993 Between: K. Nageswara Rao S/o late K.S. Rao, R/o Amalapuram AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A'Hyderabad2 The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Kakinada .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased tocall for the records pertaining to the Estate Duty Tax proceedings of the petitioner upto the E.D.A.No.4/Hyd/89, dt: 27-7-1992, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal HyderabadBench 'A' and issue a Writ of Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ ofCertiorari holding the petitioner is a joint family member and hence lenial documentsshare is liable for aggregation as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law andconsequentially declare that the authority has no right to collect as aggregatedamount from lenial decendant the estate duty as the partition was effected and thepetitioner is not a member of joint family Counsel for the Petitioner:Mr.M.Krishnamohana Rao (Not present)Counsel for the Respondents:Mr.S.R.Ashok, S.C. for Income Tax. The Court made the following O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M.H.S.Ansari: As on the previous occasion, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner,matter was adjourned as last chance. Even today, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor any representation ismade on his behalf. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default. No order as to costs. ___________________ (M.H.S.ANSARI,J) 9[th] February, 2005. ___________________ (T.CH.SURYA RAO,J) vrn To 1 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Kakinada. 3 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