The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Karjatkar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd
High Court
13 Dec 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Karjatkar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
13 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. Karjatkar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, we allow this Application.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
(1) CA No. 6225/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6225 OF 2011
IN
TAX APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 3577 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-1
Versus
Karjatkar Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd.
***
Mr. Kadethankar, Advocate for the applicants.
Applicant.
Respondent.
***
CORAM : P.B. VARALEANDSUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
Dated : 13-12-2017.
PER COURT :-
.Heard Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh for the respondent.
2.By way of the present application, the applicant prays for condonation of delay of 685 days caused in filing appeal. Mr. Sharma invited our attention to the grounds raised in the application, more particularly Paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5. It is submission of Mr. Sharma that the order passed by Income
(2) CA No. 6225/2011
Tax Appellate Tribunal was challenged by way of an application before the Tribunal itself. The application was pending for some time. Subsequently the Department was taking necessary steps. As the Department was under the impression that certain orders would be passed in the application and the application was pending for a considerable period, there was some communication between the authorities. Learned Counsel Mr. Sharma submits that as the appellant raised substantial grounds in the appeal alongwith the substantial questions of law whereby the penalty against the respondent is sought to be recovered, Mr. Sharma submits that as the issue revolves around the revenue to be recovered by way of taxes, the application be allowed and the appellant be permitted to prosecute the appeal on its merit.
3.Learned Counsel Mrs. Deshmukh appearing for the respondent vehemently opposes the application.
4.In view of the submissions of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant and for the reasons stated in the application, we allow this Application. Delay is condoned.
5.Notice of appeal be issued to the respondent, returnable on 17.01.2018.
(3) CA No. 6225/2011
6.Learned Counsel, Mrs. Deshmukh waives notice for
the respondent.
7.Post the appeal for admission and consideration on
17.01.2018.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL) JUDGE
( P.B. VARALE) JUDGE
vdd/
***
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.