Itxa/2769/2009 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(I.t) v. Bank Of Behrin And Kuwait
High Court
23 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2769/2009 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(I.t) v. Bank Of Behrin And Kuwait
Date of order
23 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/2769/2009 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(I.t) v. Bank Of Behrin And Kuwait, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 5.In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2128 OF 2007
The Director of Income Tax..Appellant.
V/s.
Bank of Behrain & Kuwait
..Respondent.
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.The appeal which is placed for admission today, was in fact placed for admission on an earlier occasion when conditional order was passed to the effect that all office objections should be removed within the time stipulated therein, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.
2.Admittedly, the office objections have not been removed in the appeal within the stipulated time though the appeal is pending in this Court for sufficiently long time. It is pertinent to note that wherever extension of time for removal of office objections were sought within the period specified, this Court has granted extension of time. However, in all the above matter, neither the objections are removed within the stipulated time nor extension of time is sought for removing the office objections. As a result, the self operative conditional order has become operational and as a consequence thereof the above appeal stood dismissed for want of removal of office objections after the expiry of the stipulated time.
3.Apart from the above, the appeal is timed barred. No Notice of Motion has been taken out seeking condonation of delay. There is also no prayer in the appeal memo seeking condonation of 1569 days delay in filing the appeal.
4.Following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ChaudharanaSteels (P) Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2009 (238) ELT 705(S.C.). we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5.In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA, 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.