The Cit v. M/S.fibre Foils Ltd
High Court
25 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit v. M/S.fibre Foils Ltd
Date of order
25 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit v. M/S.fibre Foils Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2097 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2097 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2097 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1669 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1669 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1669 OF 2008
The CIT .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Fibre Foils Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.
Mr.A.R.Singh for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 25th September, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 433 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
1.9.2006. It appears that though the last date for
filing the Appeal was 24.1.2007, the Appeal came to be
filed belatedly on 2.6.2008. We are not satisfied with
the reasons given for condonation of delay. The reasons
given for delay that of getting the draft memo of Appeal
prepared and that of the other reasons beyond the
control of the Appellant’s office including the
administrative difficulties etc. 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.1669/2008 also stands dismissed.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, 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.