Wp/4517/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
28 Oct 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/4517/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
28 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
2003-2004, 2004-2005
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/4517/2008 Of The Agricultural Market Committee v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
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 V.V.S.RAOANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.4517 of 2008
28.10.2010
Between:
The Agricultural Market Committee,Tekkali Hqs at Kasibugga, Rep.by its Secretary,Tekkali,Srikakulam District.
… Petitioner
And
The Income Tax Officer,Ward No-2, Srikakulam,Srikakulam District,And others.
... Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAOAND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.4517 of 2008
ORDER(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The Agricultural Market Committee, Tekkali (AMC), filed theinstant writ petition assailing the notice, dated 19.02.2008, issued by theIncome Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srikakulam (ITO), under Section 226(3) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961. By impugned notice, first respondent requiredthe State Bank of India, Kasibugga Branch, to pay a sum ofRs.13,84,696/- for the assessment year 2003-2004 and Rs.10,15,923/-for the assessment year 2004-2005 held by the latter in the account ofthe petitioner AMC.
This Court admitted the matter on 04.03.2008. When the matter istaken up for hearing, the standing counsel for AMC
Sri K.Madhava Reddy submits that impugned notice has beenwithdrawn by the ITO after the petitioner AMC paid some amount to theITO. He also submits that pursuant to the orders of the learned IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, the said amount has been refunded. The cause
of action, therefore, does not survive as rightly pointed out by learnedstanding counsel.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
No costs.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
28.10.2010pln
______________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
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.