Mumbai v. M/S. Hinduja Finance Corporation
High Court
03 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S. Hinduja Finance Corporation
Date of order
03 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. M/S. Hinduja Finance Corporation, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VPH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION No. 3241 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No.2085 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income-Tax-8 Appellant
Mumbai
Vs
M/s. Hinduja Finance Corporation ... Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM: Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, &
V. C. DAGA, JJ.
DATED: DECEMBER 3, 2008.
P.C.:
----
. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
Perused the Notice of Motion and the affidavit in
support thereof. The Notice of Motion is taken out
for condoning the delay of 547 days in filing the
appeal against the order dated 9th August 2006 passed
by the Tribunal in ITA No.3340/Mum/99. In the
affidavit it is stated that after approval of the
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax was received, entire
case paper file was sent to the counsel for the
Department on 21-02-2007 for drafting the appeal memo.
The main reasons for the delay in filing the appeal,
- 2 -
given in the affidavit are, due to administrative
exigencies, the procedural formalities, large number
of appeals to be drafted and obtaining court fee
stamps. We are not at all satisfied with the
reasoning given in the affidavit. No case is made out
for condoning the delay. In the result, Notice of
Motion is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ V. C. DAGA, J.] [ Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.