Nma/4946/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9,Mum v. M/S Phoenix Industries Pvt Ltd
High Court
18 Oct 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/4946/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9,Mum v. M/S Phoenix Industries Pvt Ltd
Date of order
18 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Nma/4946/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9,Mum v. M/S Phoenix Industries Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Under these circumstances, we are left with no option but to dismiss this notice of motion.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4946 OF 2007ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 505 OF 2001
The Commissioner of Income Tax.
... Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Phoenix Industries P.Ltd.
... Respondent.
P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
B.V.Jhaveri for the respondent.
CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ.DATED : 18[th] October 2010.
P.C.:
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
2.The gross negligence on the part of the Revenue in taking out this notice of motion is writ large. Appeal was filed sometime in the year 2001. At that time, it was delayed by six days. It was allowed to remain in the registry for removal of office objections. Objections were not removed. Consequently, appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25[th] September, 2001.
2
3.Later on, improperly drafted notice of motion was taken out on 13[th] July, 2003, i.e. practically, after two and half years. The same was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 23[rd] April, 2007. Liberty was granted to take out proper notice of motion.
4.The present notice of motion is now filed on 31[st ]December, 2008. The same was again kept pending in the registry almost for a period of 3 years. No steps were taken by the Revenue to get it circulated and obtain appropriate orders from this Court.
5.Even today, motion is defective. It does not carry any prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The present motion is delayed by more than 2,000 days for which there is no explanation. Under these circumstances, we are left with no option but to dismiss this notice of motion.
6.In the result, notice of motion is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(R.M.SAVANT, J.) (V.C.DAGA 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.