Case LawHigh Court › D.b. Civil Restoration Application v. In...

D.b. Civil Restoration Application v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

High Court 25 Feb 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
D.b. Civil Restoration Application v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Date of order
25 Feb 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In D.b. Civil Restoration Application v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Civil Restoration Application No.305/ 2014M/ s.Deepak Vegpro Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Date of Judgment : 25.02.2015 REPORTABLEHON'BLE THE ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE MR.SUNI L AMBW ANIHON'BLE MR. JUSTI CE PRAKASH GUPTA Mr. Anant Kasliwal, counsel for applicant. 1.The Income Tax Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the complete notices were not filed despite grant of time on02.04.2012. This Restoration Application has been filed withdelay of 727 days. We find that despite the dismissal of the Appeal for not filing the complete notices on 02.04.2012, theapplicant had not filed complete notices, and has not cared tofile the complete notices, even with the present application. 2.The ground for condonation of delay of 727 days for notfiling the complete notices is that the appellant was not awareof the dismissal of the appeal. 3.On 02.04.2012, the Court passed the order that “two weeks' time, as prayed for, is allowed to learned counsel forthe appellant to do the needful in the matter, failing which theappeal shall stand dismissed automatically without furtherreference to the Court”. The order shows that the counsel forthe appellant was fully aware of the order dated 02.04.2012and its consequences. It is thus, difficult to believe that he wasnot aware of the consequential dismissal of the appeal for last three years. 4.We do not find any good ground to condone the delay of 727 days in filing the restoration application. 5.The Restoration Application is thus, dismissed. ( PRAKASH GUPTA) ,J. ( SUNI L AMBW ANI ) ,ACTI NG C.J. MohitM/ 4 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.Mohit Tak, P.A.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan