The C.i.t. Central Ii v. M/S Parle Beverages Ltd
High Court
05 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The C.i.t. Central Ii v. M/S Parle Beverages Ltd
Date of order
05 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The C.i.t. Central Ii v. M/S Parle Beverages Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In view of dismissal of notice of motion, appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION No. 3221 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No. 1264 OF 2008
The C.I.T. Central II. .. Appellant.
Vs
M/s Parle Beverages Ltd. .. Respondent.
Mr P. S. Sahadevan, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr A. K. Jasani, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
AND V.C.DAGA, JJ.
AND V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008.
DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008.
P.C.:
P.C.:----
----
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In the above appeal, the appellant has
challenged the judgment and order dated 19.4.2006
passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1977/M/97. The
Department took two years and eight months to get the
memo of appeal drafted and thereafter above appeal has
been filed on 28.4.2008. However, the affidavit in
support of notice of motion states that delay is not
due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the
appellant. We are not at all satisfied with the
reasoning given in the affidavit. No case is made out
for condoning the delay.
3. In the above circumstances, we are left with
no alternative but to dismiss the notice of motion for
want of sufficient cause in filing the appeal
belatedly.
4. In the result, notice of motion stands
dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of notice of motion,
appeal also stands dismissed.
(V.C. DAGA,J)
(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.