Nma/1041/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Vii, Mumbai v. M/S. Faffron Surgical P. Ltd
High Court
11 Jun 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1041/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Vii, Mumbai v. M/S. Faffron Surgical P. Ltd
Date of order
11 Jun 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/1041/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Vii, Mumbai v. M/S. Faffron Surgical P. Ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In the above circumstances, we are left with no alternative but to dismiss the notice of motion for non-compliance of order and want of sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OFMOTION NO. 1041 OF 2004
NOTICE OF
IN
INCOME TAXAPPEAL (LDG.) NO. 361 OF 2004
INCOME TAX
The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Saffron Surgical P.Ltd. ... Respondent.
A.D.Kango for the appellant.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATED : 11th June 2007.
DATED : 11th June 2007.
DATED : 11th June 2007.
P.C. :
P.C. :----
----
. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused notice of motion and affidavit filed in support thereof.
2. By this notice of motion, the appellant is
seeking condonation of 237 days in filing appeal. The
explanation for delay given by the appellant is thus:-
The delay has occurred due to restructuring of
the Department and due to the same there was
delay in locating the files pertaining to the
above matter in spite of the best efforts from
the concerned department personnel.
3. The above is a routine and stereotype reason
furnished by the Revenue in almost all the
applications for condonation of delay though
restructuring of the department has actually taken
place in the year 2001 whereas this appeal is filed in
the year 2004. The affidavit in support is cryptic
and does not give any particulars and reasons.
Therefore, on 30th April, 2007, appellant was granted
time to file better affidavit.
4. Despite the matter having been adjourned
supplementary affidavit setting out sufficient cause
for delay has not been filed. This attitude of the
department is being noticed daily in number of cases
with no improvement. This Court cannot show more
indulgence than what was shown in this case and number
of such other cases. Revenue cannot be given any
special treatment. All litigants before this Court
are to be treated similarly. In spite of this, we, in
our opinion, have given much latitude which the
appellant- Revenue failed to encash.
5. In the above circumstances, we are left with
no alternative but to dismiss the notice of motion for
non-compliance of order and want of sufficient cause
in filing the appeal belatedly.
6. In the result, notice of motion stands
dismissed. In view of dismissal of notice of motion,
appeal papers be consigned to record.
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.