Mumbai v. M/S.v. Vijaykumar & Co
High Court
23 Oct 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S.v. Vijaykumar & Co
Date of order
23 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. M/S.v. Vijaykumar & Co, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: Considering the contentions the issue would be whether the Revenue has shown sufficient cause.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1564 of 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.767 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income-tax
Mumbai ..Appellant
Vs.
M/s.V. Vijaykumar & Co.............Respondents
Mr.B.M. Chatterjee with Mrs. P.P. Bhosale and Mr.
P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Ms. A. Vissanji i/b. S.P. Mehta for the
Respondent
CORAM: F.I.
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
P.C.:
. There is a delay of 245 days in preferring
the appeal. The order of the CIT was received on
26th April, 2005 and the Appeal Memo was ready on
1st October, 2005. The stamp papers were made
available on 17th January, 2006. According to the
affidavit in support of the Motion there was a
change of procedure and the documents were received
on 2nd February, 2006. Except for using the
expression heavy work there is no reason as to why
the Appeal which was ready and the stamp paper was
received on 17th January, 2006, was filed on 26th
April, 2006.
2. Apart from that on behalf of the respondent
(-2-)
learned Counsel points out that from the record it
will be seen that the cause shown would not amount
to sufficient cause. It is also pointed out that
two question of law are answered in favour of the
assessee. In so far as question B is concerned,
that is covered by the judgment of this Court in 261
ITR 256. Considering the contentions the issue
would be whether the Revenue has shown sufficient
cause. In our opinion there is no explanation
between 17th January, 2006 and 26th April, 2006.
The cause shown would not amount to sufficient
cause. Hence motion dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(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.