Nma/2205/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Incometax 3 v. New Era Fabrics Ltd
High Court
23 Apr 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2205/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Incometax 3 v. New Era Fabrics Ltd
Date of order
23 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/2205/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Incometax 3 v. New Era Fabrics Ltd, the High Court (2007) 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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OFMOTION NO. 2205 OF 2003IN INCOME TAXAPPEAL (LDG.) NO. 711 OF 2003
NOTICE OF
IN
INCOME TAX
INCOME TAX
The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Appellant.
V/s.
New Era Fabrics Ltd. ... Respondent.
Mr Ashok Kotangale i/b P. S. Sahadevan, for the
Applicant/appellant.
Mr Sean Wascodew for the respondent.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATED : 23rd April 2007.
DATED : 23rd April 2007.
DATED : 23rd April 2007.
P.C. :
P.C. :----
----
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By the above notice of motion,the appellant is
seeking condonation of 353 days delay in filing the
appeal. The appellant has filed further affidavit
dated 11th April, 2007. Perusal of the same indicates
that the last date for filing of the appeal was
9.8.2002 and it appears that order of I.T.A.T. was
received in the office of C.I.T. Mumbai on 12.4.2002.
Draft Appeal Memo was sent to the Central Government
Advocate on 12.8.2002 i.e. after the last date of the
filing of the appeal and draft of appeal appears to
have received on 24.7.2003 and then appeal has been
lodged on 29.7.2003. The affidavit does not indicate
what steps were taken by the Department to get the
appeal drafted expeditiously.
3. The above affidavit is not satisfactory. We
are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction to
condone delay. Notice of motion stands dismissed with
no order as to costs.
(V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(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.