The Cit-1 v. M/S.oxford Industries Ltd
High Court
17 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-1 v. M/S.oxford Industries Ltd
Date of order
17 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit-1 v. M/S.oxford Industries Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: As the Motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JRISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1643 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.21 OF 2007
The CIT-1 ..Appellant
Versus
M/s.Oxford Industries Ltd., ..Respondent
----
Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mrs.Vasanti B.Patel for respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 17.3.2008.
PC
1. This is a Motion for condoning 533 days delay in
filing the appeal. A perusal of the
affidavit-in-support, indicates that the matter was
sent to the ministry of law for drafting appeal memo
on 20.7.2005. The draft was however, received on
22.6.2006. A period of over 11 months for drafting
appeal memo cannot be said to be reasonable. Even
after draft was received, appeal was filed on
1.4.2007. The delay caused between the receipt of
the draft appeal memo and the filing of the appeal
has also not been explained. In our view,
therefore, cause shown does not amount to sufficient
cause. Hence, Motion dismissed.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.21 OF 2007
. As the Motion for condoning delay is dismissed,
appeal also stands dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.