Nma/1235/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -11, Mumbai v. M/S Venus Continental
High Court
29 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1235/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -11, Mumbai v. M/S Venus Continental
Date of order
29 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1235/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -11, Mumbai v. M/S Venus Continental, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Order also made clear that appellant had toremove office objections and get appeal numbered within four weeks, failingwhich appeal shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without furtherreference to the Court.
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 BOMBAY
ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1235 OF 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1811 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai
...Appellant
V/s.
M/s.Venus Continental
...Respondent
Mr.A.D. Kango with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for Appellant.None for Respondent.
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ.
DATED : 29[th] APRIL, 2008.
P.C.:-1.Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. We have perused theorder dated 4[th] February, 2008 passed in Notice of Motion No.69 of 2006whereby, we have condoned the delay of 256 days in filing the appeal.However, appellant was directed to pay costs quantifying Rs.2500/- within aperiod of four weeks, which was also not paid within that period, however,
paid on 25[th] March, 2008. Order also made clear that appellant had toremove office objections and get appeal numbered within four weeks, failingwhich appeal shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without furtherreference to the Court.
2.Only explanation given in the affidavit in support of Notice of Motionin para 6 is that appeal could not be numbered in time for reasons beyondcontrol of the appellant's officer and due to administrative difficulty. We arenot at all satisfied with the above reason. Notice of Motion stands dismissed.Needless to say that appeal already stood dismissed by the earlier order.
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(A.V. NIRGUDE, 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.