Cmp/8324/2022 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.bhakthavatsalam Memorial Trust
High Court
13 Jun 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Cmp/8324/2022 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.bhakthavatsalam Memorial Trust
Date of order
13 Jun 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Cmp/8324/2022 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.bhakthavatsalam Memorial Trust, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
CMP.Nos.8324, 8731, 9117, 9167 and 9120 of 2022in
TCA.SR.Nos. 54099, 54109, 111796, 111797 and 111795 of 2018
R. MAHADEVAN, J.and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
(Order of the court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
CMP.No.8324 of 2022:This petition has been filed by the petitioner / appellant seeking to condone the delay of 1002 days in representing the above TCA.SR.No.54099 of 2018.
CMP.No.8731 of 2022:This petition has been filed by the petitioner / appellant seeking to condone the delay of 1350 days in representing the above TCA.SR.No.54109 of 2018.
CMP.Nos.9117, 9167 and 9120 of 2022: These petitions have been filed by the petitioner / appellant seeking to condone the delay of 1217 days in representing the above TCA.SR.Nos.111796, 111797 and 111795 of 2018.
2. Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner / appellant submitted that after assuming the office as standing counsel for the department, he took steps to file the appeals, upon reading the orders passed by the authorities below and drafting the affidavits and grounds of appeals; the appeal papers were
subsequently returned by the Registry for certain defects; after complying with the defects, the same were represented; in that process, the delay had occasioned, which is neither wilful nor wanton and hence, the same may be condoned.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / petitioner and also taking note of the legal position that the question of limitation is not based on technical consideration, but is on the principles of public policy and equity; and the substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal, this court is inclined to condone the delay in representing the appeals.
4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and these petitions are ordered as prayed for.
av
[R.M.D., J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
13.06.2022
R. MAHADEVAN, J.andMOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
CMP.Nos.8324, 8731, 9117, 9167 and 9120 of 2022in TCA.SR.Nos. 54099, 54109, 111796, 111797 and 111795 of 2018
13.06.2022
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.