Hinduja Ventures Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax

((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4622 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2799 OF 2007 Hinduja Ventures Ltd. .. Appellant Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax .. Respondent Mr. K.B. Bhujle for the Appellant. Mr. S.M. Shah for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2007 R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2007 P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. . From the record, we find that the appellant herein had preferred an appeal No.860 of 2004 before I.T.A.T. That appeal was dismissed by order dated 24.8.2006. The order was communicated to the appellants on 19.9.2006.The appeal before this court against that order was preferred only on 5.12.2007. . It is the case of the appellant, that the against the order of Commissioner of Appeals Revenue had also preferred an appeal before I.T.A.T. In that appeal on the very same issue in respect of which ((-2-)) appeal was filed, the appellant had filed cross objections being Cross Objection No.304/Mumbai/2004.That appeal along with the Cross objection was dismissed on 12.4.2007. The order was communicated on 10.5.2007.The appellant thereafter filed Misc Application in those proceedings on 10.5.2007.The order communicating dismissal of M.A. was communicated to him on 1.10.2007. The appeal thereafter was filed on 5.12.2007. . On behalf of the revenue, it is sought to be contended that explanation sought tobe given in Para 3 of the affidavit in support of the motion is clearly not borne by the record of the order. . After hearing the counsel for the parties,the cause which is sought tobe shown on behalf of the appellant is that they were bona fide prosecuting the cross objection in the appeal preferred by the appellant is that they were bona fide prosecuting the cross objection in the appeal preferred by the Revenue and thereafter Misc.Application and in these circumstances, the time taken in those proceedings should be excluded and/or that should be considered for the purpose of sufficient cause. Even if the appellant was not entitled to agitate these issue after dismissal of the appeal, yet if they were bona fidely prosecuting the Cross objections in the appeal preferred by the Revenue even if ultimately cross objections ought to be dismissed, on wrong ((-3-)) legal advise, it cannot be said that the appellant was not bona fide prosecuting the proceedings. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the period between 19.9.2006 and 1.10.2007 has been sufficiently explained. The rest of the period also have been explained. Considering the above, cause shown amounts to sufficient cause. At the highest, revenue can be compensated by cost. Hence, delay condoned. Motion made absolute accordingly subject to the Appellant’s paying to the Respondent costs quantified at Rs. Five Thousand within four weeks from today. Office to register the appeal. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)