M/S.m.j. Exports Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 & Ors
High Court
20 Sep 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.m.j. Exports Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 & Ors
Date of order
20 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.m.j. Exports Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3 & Ors, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Issue: Considering the above and without going into the issue as to whether the Revision as filed is maintainable or not in our opinion the cause shown would amount to sufficient cause as the petitioner herein was bonafide prosecuting the proceedings before another forum.
Decision: Consequently the impugned order is set aside in terms of what is aforestated.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1995 OF 2007
M/s.M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd........Petitioner
Vs.
Commissioner of Income-tax-3 & Ors....Respondents
Dr. K.Shivram with Mr. A.R.Singh and Mr. S.S.
Karkela for the Petitioner
Mr. B.M. Chatterji with Mrs. P.P. Bhosale for the
Respondents.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATED: 20th September,2007
CORAM: F.I.
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 20th September,2007
P.C.:
. Rule. Heard forthwith.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court
against the order dated 28th March, 2007 whereby the
Commissioner of Income-tax-3 firstly held that the
petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for
condoning the delay in applying under the provisions
of Section 267 of the Income Tax Act. After holding
that the delay cannot be condoned went on to observe
that even on merits the petition is not maintainable
on the ground that the assessee had filed an Appeal
before High Court.
3. On behalf of the Petitioner it is contended
that the Appeal filed in the High Court for the
(-2-)
assessment year 1997-98 was in respect of Section
115JA of the Income-tax and not in respect of the
present subject matter. It is further submitted
that in so far as the present order was concerned,
an Appeal was preferred, but that was held to be not
maintainable. Reliance is placed also on the
Board’s Circular No.367 dated 26th July, 1983.
4. Considering the above and without going into
the issue as to whether the Revision as filed is
maintainable or not in our opinion the cause shown
would amount to sufficient cause as the petitioner
herein was bonafide prosecuting the proceedings
before another forum. Hence the delay in preferring
the Revision Application is condoned.
5. The Commissioner of Income-tax to decide the
Revision Application according to law. All
questions are left open for consideration before the
Commissioner. Consequently the impugned order is
set aside in terms of what is aforestated. Rule
made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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.