Nma/1770/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Vii v. M/S.sadhana Nitrochem Ltd
High Court
09 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1770/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Vii v. M/S.sadhana Nitrochem Ltd
Date of order
09 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/1770/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Vii v. M/S.sadhana Nitrochem Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1770 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.656 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax - VII,MumbaiV/s.Sadhana Nitrochem Ltd.
.
...Appellant...Respondent
Mr.Avinash D. Kango, Advocate, for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
P.C. :
.Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.None appears for the Respondent.
2.By this Notice of Motion, the appellant isseeking condonation of delay of 407 days in filing theAppeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Noticeof Motion. The Appeal is against the ITAT’s orderdated 5th September, 2006. The Chief CIT had grantedapproval for filing the Appeal on 10th January, 2007,however it took nearly 13 months time to get the Memoof Appeal drafted. The Appeal came to be lodged onlyon 1st March, 2008 on the ground of shortage of Court
fee stamps.
3.We are not satisfied with the reasons givenfor delay in filing of the Appeal. The reasons givenfor delay that of getting the Appeal Memo prepared,non-availability of Court fee stamps and other reasonsbeyond the control of the Appellant’s office includingthe administrative difficulties etc. does not appearto be justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out forcondonation of delay. Hence Notice of Motion standsdismissed.
4.In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion,Income Tax Appeal (L.) No.656 of 2008 also standsdismissed.
[A.V. NIRGUDE, 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.