In Assistantcommissionerofincomeagplicanttax v. Non-Applicantm/S Geedam Coid Storage Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Coram: HON‘BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA &HON’BLE MR.C.B.BAJPAI,
M.C.C.No.645 of 201‘3
AssistantCommissionerofIncomeAgplicantTax
Versus
Non-applicantM/s Geedam Coid Storage Pvt.Ltd.
(Appiication[for][ restoration][ of][ Tax][ Case][ (income][ Tax][ Appeai)][ No.8/2006)]
None presentftheap VNone present-for[the][ non-appiicant.]
‘ORDER(29-1-2015)
.Registry has pointed out thefauits'.1'
. When the passed over cases caiied out for hearing second[time,][ none]'present[for][ the][ appiicant.][ N]presentation[is][ made.]
'n‘t.By this appiication, thelappi' haprayed[for][ restoration][ of][ Tax][ Case]iNo.‘dismissedby thedivision(income[Tax][ Appeal)]’06; which[was]Bench of this Court as time barred
4.In absence of any representation on[behaif][ of][ the][ applicant][ and][ the][ fact]thattaxcasehasbeendismissedastimebarred,theappiicationisdismissed. No order as to costs.
aSdl-\C.B. Judge
V
sdl-'rift-“Tm. ShamsLjudge
1
r
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.
EaseValue