Case LawHigh Court › Mait/53/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income T...

Mait/53/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S S.m. Milcose Ltd. Center Point

High Court 08 May 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · mphc_db_gwl
Parties
Mait/53/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S S.m. Milcose Ltd. Center Point
Date of order
08 May 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Mait/53/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S S.m. Milcose Ltd. Center Point, the High Court (2015) dismissed 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

MAIT 53/2007, FA 82/2013, FA 95/2013 08-05-2015 The Court proposes to pass this common conditional order to obviate passing of identical conditional order in these matters involving similar office objection/default : In all these matters, due to non-removal of office objection within the prescribed time as per the Rules, the concerned matter was placed before the Registrar in the first instance. The Registrar granted sufficient time to the petitioner(s) applicant(s)/appellant(s) to cure the defect/office objection, however, due to non-removal of office objection/default within the prescribed time, the concerned matter was required to be once again listed before the Court. The Court granted further time, by passing common order on the earlier occasion. In spite of repeated opportunity ( three times – one under Rules, second by the Registrar and third by Court), the petitioner(s), applicant(s)/appellant(s) has failed to cure the office objection/default. As a result, by way of indulgence and last opportunity, in terms of this order, 'SIX WEEKS' further time is granted to the petitioner(s), applicant(s)/appellant(s) in the respective matters to remove office objection/default and make the matter ready for further hearing within that time, failing which the concerned petition/application/appeal shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. Provided, however, in cases, where the objection/default is about non-service of any of the respondent, on expiry of the extended period, the Aruna concerned matter will stand dismissed for non-prosecution only against the unserved respondent (s), without further reference to the Court. The matter would then proceed against the remaining respondent (s). In cases where the office objection/default has already been cured before passing of this order, it will be open to the concerned party to bring that fact to the notice of the Registrar (Judicial-II), who may examine the same and proceed with the matter as per the listing scheme, if ready for hearing. If the office objections are removed within the time extended in terms of this order, the concerned matter(s) be made returnable on the date notified hereafter. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge (D.K. Paliwal ) Judge
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