Skip to content


income-tax Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. M/S. Adilabad Sindhi Group Corpn. Adilabad. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-Tax Case Nos. 5 and 54 of 1975
Reported in(1976)5CTR(AP)0331A
Appellantincome-tax Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
RespondentM/S. Adilabad Sindhi Group Corpn. Adilabad.
Excerpt:
- all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5.....s. obul reddi, c.j. - the tribunal on a consideration of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that it cannot be held that the assessee is guilty of contumacious conduct in not playing the tax on his disputed income. it would appear stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. from that one circumstances, it cannot be said that he deliberately chose not to pay the disputed tax, so as to warrant the imposition of penalty. we are therefore unable to direct the tribunal to make a reference to this court. the petition is dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:

S. Obul Reddi, C.J. - The Tribunal on a consideration of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that it cannot be held that the assessee is guilty of contumacious conduct in not playing the tax on his disputed income. It would appear stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal. From that one circumstances, it cannot be said that he deliberately chose not to pay the disputed tax, so as to warrant the imposition of penalty. We are therefore unable to direct the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court. The petition is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //