Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur Chhattisgarh v. M/S. Rajesh Strips Limited, 535-C, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Chhattisgarh
High Court
07 Jul 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · cghccisdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur Chhattisgarh v. M/S. Rajesh Strips Limited, 535-C, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Chhattisgarh
Date of order
07 Jul 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur Chhattisgarh v. M/S. Rajesh Strips Limited, 535-C, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Chhattisgarh, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 5.The appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Tax Case No. 61 of 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
M/s. Rajesh Strips Limited, 535-C, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant:-Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate.For Respondent:-Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Hon'ble The Chief JusticeHon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Judgment on Board
07/07/2015
Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice
1.The present appeal filed by the Department arises from a commonorder dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur(hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal allowed Appeal No.8/Nag/2004, 107/Nag/2003, and cross objection No. 64/Nag/2005 filed by theAssessee. Appeal No. 106/Nag/2005 and Appeal No. 2/Nag/2004 filed by theDepartment were dismissed. All of them related to block assessment year1.4.1989 to 26.2.2000 with regard to the sole Respondent. Tax Case No. 58 of2009 and 62 of 2009 were also preferred by the Department against thecommon order dated 13.10.2006. Both stood dismissed in 2009 for non-compliance of the peremptory order for removal of defects.
2.We have called for the records and find that neither have the defectsbeen removed nor has the Department filed any application for restoration.
3.Considering that the questions of law arising for consideration arecommon in between the same parties and for the same block year, we are notpersuaded to entertain the present appeal when the Department hasaccepted the finality of the order dated 13.10.2006 in other two appeals andwishes to proceed selectively in one only.
4.Learned Counsel for the Appellant did seek to persuade us to considerthe present appeal on merits. We do not consider it prudent to do so in apiquant situation created by the Appellant due to its own conduct between thesame parties and for the same block period.
5.The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Navin Shiha)
(P. Sam Koshy)
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
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.