Mcc/632/2021 Of M/S Rama Construction Bhopal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhopal
High Court
16 Jun 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · mphc_db_jbp
Parties
Mcc/632/2021 Of M/S Rama Construction Bhopal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhopal
Date of order
16 Jun 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Mcc/632/2021 Of M/S Rama Construction Bhopal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax Bhopal, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: As a result the main application for restoration of review petition also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
The High Court Of Madhya PradeshMCC-632-2021
(M/S RAMA CONSTRUCTION BHOPALVs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BHOPAL AND OTHERS)
1
[16][-][06][-][2021]Jabalpur, Dated :
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Per:V.K.Shukla,J.
Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A.No.3929/2021, which is an application for exemption
from filing certified copy.
It is stated that due to Covid-19, it is not possible to receive the
certified copy of the order and therefore, the application has been filed on
the basis of true copy of the documents.
In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed and exemption is
granted from filing of the certified copy.
Learned counsel for the applicant is also heard on I.A.No.3930/2021,
which is an application for condonation of delay.
The present application is filed for restoration of R.P.No.459/2017,
which was dismissed on account of peremptory order dated 23-08-2017.
The application is barred by 993 days. In the application for condonation of
delay, no reason has been explained for the delay. The application reads as
under :
"1. That the applicant has filed present application forrestoration of R.P.No.459/2017, which was dismissedfor peremptory order vide order dated 23-08-2017.
2. That the applicant was unaware and therefore couldnot rectify the default as pointed out.
3. That the aforesaid is bonafide in nature and hence,may be condoned."
Thus, the applicant has not stated any reason explaining such huge
delay in filing the present application for restoration of review petition. Sincethe delay of 993 days has not been explained by the applicant, we do notfind any reason for condoning the delay in filing the present application.
Signature Not VerifiedSANDigitally signed by HAR SAHAYPATERIYADate: 2021.06.18 13:16:20 IST
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
As a result the main application for restoration of review petition also
stands dismissed.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE
hsp
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.