Sushil Kumar Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Another

^^ THE,HON'BLE_Hg©HCOURTOF JUDBCATURECgiHATTaSGARH AT•M^o1«W"^"of 2008Oiv:^on BengH^M In Income Tax Appeal No. 32-of 2003 /A()t)e|lsint: ^Sushil Kumar Agrawal ProprietorM/s. S. K. Industries, Nayagunj WardBhatapara Distt. Raipur (C.G.)B.B.^tfS^8^^^•-Versus^,^..—"^/BejifiQjidenteDeputy Commissioner of^)Income Tax Circle Bhilai,Bhilai (C.G.)Commissioner of Incbme TaxRaipur (C.G.)Aj0PJJjiai!on^pj_re^oratjon pfa^eal^^^adatcd_W.O®.2007ordering dSsmissal of appeal for^^'non removal of default -^' ashok HiGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH_AT_BJLASPURM.C.C. No. 347 OF 2008 Appellant Sushil Kumar AgrawalVERSUSDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax& Another Respondents Application for restoration oLappeal and ordering dismjssaiof^^remova! of defauitremova! of defauit D.B.Hon'ble Shri Satlsh'K. Agnihotri &Hon'bSe Shrs Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ.Hon'bSe Shrs Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Present:Shri Neeiabh Du'bey, Advocate for the appeilant. Shrs Anand Dadariya, Advocate tor the respondents, ORDER(Passed on th's 25th day of July, 2012) 1.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the issueinvoivedin this appeaiis already pendsng consideratloninotherappeais aiso. The delay was on account of tne fact that the appeiiantcame to know the dismissal of tne appeai for v/ant of prosecutlon, asthe order dated 16.08.2007 was preemptor^ order and thereafter, stepswere immediately taken to file the application for condonation of deiay.invoivedin this appeaiis already pendsng consideratloninotherappeais aiso. The delay was on account of tne fact that the appeiiantcame to know the dismissal of tne appeai for v/ant of prosecutlon, asthe order dated 16.08.2007 was preemptor^ order and thereafter, stepswere immediately taken to file the application for condonation of deiay. 2.Learned counsei appearing for the incQme tax submits that no sufficientreasons have been assigned to condone the delay.reasons have been assigned to condone the delay. 3.Having regard to the facts of the case and in the interest of justice,deiay is condoned subject to payment of a sum of Rs.4,000/" as cost tothe respondent income tax department.deiay is condoned subject to payment of a sum of Rs.4,000/" as cost tothe respondent income tax department. 4.Reasonable and sufficient cause has been shown. Income Tax AppealNo.32 of 2003, is restored to the originai fiie.No.32 of 2003, is restored to the originai fiie. 5.A copy of this order be piaced on record of the original income taxappeal and the same be iisted for hearing.appeal and the same be iisted for hearing. Sd/-Satish K. AgnihotriJudge Sd/-R.S. SharmaJudge