Case Law › High Court › Mcc/491/2011 Of Sunita Finlease Ltd v. A...

Mcc/491/2011 Of Sunita Finlease Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 18 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · cghccisdb

Parties

Date of order

18 Aug 2011

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Allowed

Case summary

In Mcc/491/2011 Of Sunita Finlease Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2011) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

'//^^' I ?.f f c L. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Division Bench) Coram:Hon' ble Shri T.P. Sharma, &Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ nfl.C.C.No. 491 of 2011 (Application for restoration of Tax Case (PR) No. 1684 of 2007) Present: Ms. Smriti Sharma, counsel forthe applicant. Mr. Amit Shrivastava, counsel for respondent on advance copy. Oral Order (Passedon 18-8-2011) PerT.P.Sharma.J. Heard. The application for restoration ofTax Case (PR) No. 1684/2007 whichwasdismissedby this court vide order dated 16-3-2011 for non-complianceof the order dated 16-3-201 1 perused. Also heard on I.A.No.1/2011, application for condonation of delay infiling the instant petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of saddemise in the family of appellant's counsel Shri Neelabh Dubey, counsel hasnot complied with the order dated 16-3-2011 and as such default has not beenmade good as pointed out by the registry and as a result of such non- Raju compliance within stipulated period, the petition has been dismissed withoutfurther reference to the bench. On due consideration, we are of the view that the applicant has beenable to explain the delay in filing the instant petition and has also explained theground for such non-compliance/not making good the default as pointed outby the registry. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2001 is allowed and delay in filing the instantpetition iscondoned. Accordingly,M.C.C.No. 491 of 2011 is allowed andTax Case (PR)No. 1684 of 2007is directed to be restored to its original number.No orderas to costs. Sd/-R.N. ChandrakarJudge Sd/-T.P. SharmaJudge

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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.