Case LawHigh Court › Mr. F v. This Appeal Was On Our Board On...

Mr. F v. This Appeal Was On Our Board On 13[Th] April, 2015. At That

High Court 27 Apr 2015 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mr. F v. This Appeal Was On Our Board On 13[Th] April, 2015. At That
Date of order
27 Apr 2015
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Mr. F v. This Appeal Was On Our Board On 13[Th] April, 2015. At That, the High Court (2015) decided the matter.

Decision: We dismiss this Appeal for want of prosecution.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1288 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3}AppellantversusM/s. Emerson Process Management}(I) Pvt. Ltd.}Respondent Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant. Mr. F. V. Irani i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM :-S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &A. K. MENON, JJ.DATED :-APRIL 27, 2015 P.C. :- This Appeal was on our board on 13[th] April, 2015. At that time, Mr. Tejveer Singh appeared and sought adjournment. Now it is stated that it was on behalf of Ms. Padma Divakar. At the request noted on 13[th] April, 2015, we adjourned the hearing of this Appeal to 15[th ]April, 2015. On that date Mr. Arvind Pinto appeared and sought time till 27[th] April, 2015. Prior to these two dates, on 23[rd] February, 2015, this Appeal was placed before a Division Bench of this Court and which adjourned it to 3[rd] March, 2015. 2)We find that this much time was enough for the Revenue to have made any arrangement that it desired to make and for briefing an arguing Counsel. We are not here to correct any misunderstanding that Ms. Divakar has as to who has to be briefed for arguing this Appeal on behalf of the Revenue. She had requested two Advocates to argue the cases of the Revenue, but none of them are willing to come forward and accede to the request of Ms. Divakar to argue this Appeal. This Court cannot wait and for all this and adjourn the matter as per their whims and fancies. Such state of affairs cannot be tolerated. We dismiss this Appeal for want of prosecution. (A.K.MENON, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
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