Member, Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad v. Subhash Samudayik Shetkari Sangh Ltd And Ors
High Court
26 Feb 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Member, Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad v. Subhash Samudayik Shetkari Sangh Ltd And Ors
Date of order
26 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Member, Appropriate Authority, Ahmedabad v. Subhash Samudayik Shetkari Sangh Ltd And Ors, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal.
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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.664 OF 2012IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO.19062 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III
Member, Appropriate Authority, AhmedabadVersusSubhash Samudayik Shetkari Sangh Ltdand ors.
: Applicant.
: Respondents.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the Applicant.Mr. V S Ghosalkar for the Respondent No.1.Mr. Omkar Geedh for the Respondent No.4.
CORAM :R. M. SAVANT, J.DATE :26[th] February 2013
P.C.
1The above Civil Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 182 days in filing the above Civil Revision Application. The reasons therefor are mentioned in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Civil Application. The reasons revolve around the facts relating to obtaining of a legal opinion and thereafter approval for filing the further proceedings against the impugned order dated 16/9/2011. The sum and substance of the case of the Applicant is that though the approval was given by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-III Pune on 3/11/2011, thereafter certain amount of time was spent in obtaining the papers etc. as the papers were not available with the said office which has resulted in delay of 182 days.
2On behalf of the original Plaintiff i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein an affidavit in reply dated 6/2/2013 has been filed wherein the justification for the delay which has been given in the above Civil Application is questioned. It is the case of the Respondent No.1 that the said justification would not amount to sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the well settled principles more so in the matters where the State is an applicant wherein a certain amount of latitude is required to be shown in view of the impersonal machinery of the State which is involved in the decision making process and in view of the fact that the delay occurs whilst arriving at a decision, the reasons mentioned in the instant Application for the delay of 182 days commend acceptance. The above Civil Application is accordingly allowed. Resultantly, the delay of 182 days in filing the above Civil Revision Application accordingly stands condoned. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Respondent No.1 is required to be compensated by way of costs. The Applicant therefore to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the Respondent No.1 to be paid within a period of four weeks from date. The above Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.
[R.M.SAVANT, 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.