The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S.proctor & Gamble Hygieneand Health Care Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1137 OF 2005IN WEALTH TAX APPEAL(L) NO.486 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7.Vs.M/s.Proctor & Gamble Hygieneand Health Care Ltd. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.A.D.Kango with P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.Mr.Rajesh Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 16/1/2008. PC :1. There is a delay of 61-days in preferring theappeal. There is affidavit in support of Mr.Anand KumarGupta showing cause.2. Heard parties. Considering the affidavit insupport, we are of the opinion that the same constitutes sufficient cause and consequently the delay is condoned. Office to register the appeal (R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I. REBELLO, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL(L) NO.486 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s.Proctor & Gamble Hygieneand Health Care Ltd...Respondent. Mr.A.D.Kango with P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.Mr.Rajesh Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 16th Jan. 2008. PC : . We find in the order of the Tribunal that consideringClause-5 of Section 2(ea)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act thematter has been remanded to the A.O. to enable therespondent to lead evidence. Clause-5 of Section2(ea)(i) was introduced by Finance Act,1998 with effectfrom 1.4.1999. The Tribunal has not recorded a findingon the issue whether the premises is in the nature ofcommercial establishment or complexes and that question is left open for consideration by the A.O. on the material which will be produced. . In the light of that, no interference is as the question of law as framed would not arise. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. called for (R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I. REBELLED, J.)