ITTA/509/2012 of M/s.Regency Cermics Ltd Vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax on 18 December 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT FIYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE EIGFITEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO TFIOUSAND AND TWENTY FWE

THE HONOURABLE SRr JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSTTY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Income Tax Tribunal Appeal No.509 of 2012

Income Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 196L against the Common Order dated 21.W.2007 passd in 934/H/2fr05 for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-B, Hyderabad preferred against the order dated 27.05.2005

passed in ITA.No.042lACIT-2(3)/CIT(A)-llIl05-06 on the file of the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals)Jll, Hyderabad,pereferred against the order dated:23 / 03 / 2025 in PAN/GIR.NO.AABCR0720Q/R-668 by the Income- Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2),Hyderabad.

Between:

M/s.Regency Ceramics Ltd, N.N.House, Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad, rep.

by its Chairman and Managing Director, Dr.G.N.Naidu.

...Appellant.

AND

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, O/o.Circle 3 [1], Hyderabad.

...Respondent.

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D.Balu, representing, Sri M/s. CKR Associates.

Counsel for the Respondent Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department.

The Court made the following: |UDGMENT:

PRESENT

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

ANI)

THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

ITTA.No.509 of 2012

Between:

IWs.Regency Ceramics Ltd.,

N.N.House, Chirag Ali Lane,

Abids, Hyderabad.

Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Dr.G.N.Naidu

...Appellant

f

(

AND

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Circle 3(1), Hyderabad.

. . . Respondent

ORDER. (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Mr.D.Balu. leamed counsel for the appellant representing M/s.CKR Associates, submits that in spite of best efforts, the appellant has not been contacting nor is he traceable and, therefore, leamed counsel for the appellant pleads no instructions.

Dated: 18.12.2025

I

I

I

I

2.

In view of the same, this Bench is left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution with liberty to the appellant to revive the same with an appropriate application with justifiable reasons, that too in case ifthe grievance still survives.

3.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed for want ofprosecution.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA

JOINT REGISTRAR

/ /TRUECOPY/ /

ONOFFICER

To,