Tax-9 v. M/S. Suman Marbles
High Court
17 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Tax-9 v. M/S. Suman Marbles
Date of order
17 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Tax-9 v. M/S. Suman Marbles, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In view of the dismissal of the notice of motion, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1115 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1115 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1115 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 690 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 690 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 690 OF 2008
Commissioner of Income
Tax-9. .. Appellant.
vs.
M/s. Suman Marbles
Industries Pvt. Ltd., .. Respondents.
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for Appellant.
None for Respondents.
CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008.
DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C.
. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant.
None appears for the Respondents. By this Notice of
Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 418
days delay caused in filing the Appeal.
2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. It appears that though the last date for
2
filing the Appeal was 1.09.2006 and the affidavit does
not even mention the date on which the approval of the
Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained.
3. We are not satisfied with the reasons given for
delay that procedural requirement took considerable
time and that of getting the draft memo of Appeal
prepared. No sufficient cause is made out for
condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands
dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the notice of
motion, the appeal also stands dismissed.
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, 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.