Sunil Agrawal v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
21 Dec 2020 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · mphc_db_ind
Parties
Sunil Agrawal v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
21 Dec 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Sunil Agrawal v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2020) allowed 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHMCC No. 1248 of 2020
(Sunil Agrawal Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax)
Indore, Dated: 21/12/2020
Shri Sumit Nema learned senior counsel with Shri GaganTiwari learned counsel for applicant
Ms. Veena Mandlik learned counsel for respondent.
Heard through video conferencing.
Heard on IA No. 3722/2020 which is an application forcondonation of delay in filing the restoration application. There isa delay of 109 days in filing the MCC.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on theperusal of the IA, it is found that the applicant was prevented fromfiling the MCC within time on account of the bonafide reason. Thedelay is unintentional and it has not taken place on account ofany deliberate lapse on the part of the applicant.
On due consideration, it is found that a good ground ismade out for condoning the delay.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3722/20 is allowed. Delay in filing theMCC is condoned.
Heard on MCC.
This is an application for restoration of ITA No. 96/2019which has been dismissed in default for non compliance ofcommon conditional peremptory order dated 16/9/2019.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant couldnot file the original copy of impugned order alongwith the servicecertificate, therefore, the default was noted and that he could notfile it within time in terms of common conditional peremptory orderas the same was not received by him and it has been receivedsubsequently, therefore, now the applicant is in a position to file it.
2
Learned counsel for respondent has not disputed theaforesaid aspect of the matter.
In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that thenon compliance of the common conditional peremptory order bythe applicant was on account of bonafide reason. Hence a casefor restoration of appeal is made out.
Accordingly, MCC is allowed and ITA No. 96/2019 isrestored to its original position.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge
(Shailendra Shukla) Judge
BDJ
Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2020.12.22 09:49:04 -08'00'
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.