The Cit -9 v. M/S.eashwar Metals Pvt.ltd
High Court
02 Dec 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit -9 v. M/S.eashwar Metals Pvt.ltd
Date of order
02 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit -9 v. M/S.eashwar Metals Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: It is stated that the matter was to be examined at various levels of the Department to assess whether the matter is worth of appealing or not and that the procedural requirement took considerable time.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INITXA (L) NO.2919/2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3157/2008IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3157/2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3157/2008
The CIT -9 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Eashwar Metals Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.
Mr.S.J.Mehta for Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 2nd December, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 1156 days’ delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. The Appeal is against the ITAT’s order dated
31.01.2005. It appears that though the Chief CIT had
granted approval for filing the Appeal on 18.10.2005,
the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on 29.08.2008. We
are not satisfied with the reasons given for condonation
of delay. It is stated that the matter was to be
examined at various levels of the Department to assess
whether the matter is worth of appealing or not and that
the procedural requirement took considerable time. The
aforesaid reasons does not appear to be justifiable. No
sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay.
Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income
Tax Appeal (L) No.2919/2008 also stands dismissed.
(V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.