City Vi v. M/S.grasim Industries Ltd
High Court
12 Jun 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
City Vi v. M/S.grasim Industries Ltd
Date of order
12 Jun 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In City Vi v. M/S.grasim Industries Ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1216 OF 2004
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1216 OF 2004
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1216 OF 2004
ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.11 OF 2004
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.11 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income Tax
City VI .. Appellant
V/s
M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.A.D.Kango for the Appellant.
Mr.J.D.Mistry with Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, &
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, &
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, &
V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 12th June, 2007.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the
aforesaid Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 634 days delay in filing the Appeal. The
original affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion is
extremely criptic and devoid of any particulars. The
said affidavit states that the delay occurred due to the
restructuring of the Department and due to delay in
locating the files. The learned Counsel for the
Appellant however fairly conceded that the restructuring
took place in the year 2001 and not in 2004.
2. After noticing the aforesaid patently false
statement, we had permitted the Appellant to file an additional better affidavit explaining the delay in a proper manner. The Appellant has accordingly filed further affidavit dated 11th April, 2007 seeking to explain the aforesaid delay. Perusal of the same
indicate that it took almost six months time for the
Income Tax Department to approve & send the file for
drafting the Memo of Appeal after receipt of the order
of the ITAT. The folder was sent for drafting the Memo
of Appeal to the Ministry of Law on 22.7.2002 and the
draft Memo of Appeal was received by the Assessing
Officer on 22.12.2003 i.e.almot after a period of 17
months. Even after the draft was received on 22.12.2003
the affidavit further states that the stamp papers for
the purpose of filing the Appeal were received on
11.3.2004, i.e.after the lapse of two & half months.
Even after receiving the stamp papers on 11.3.2004 the
Appeal was lodged on 15.4.2004, i.e. more than a month
thereafter. The last date of filing the Appeal was
21.7.2002 whereas the Appeal was lodged on 15.4.2004.
3. The Assessing Officer ought to have pursued with the
Ministry of Law, and got the appeal drafted & lodged
within time. The facts disclosed in the affidavit
disclose a very sorry state of affairs. We are not
inclined to condone the aforesaid gross delay. Notice
of Motion stands dismissed.
(V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.