The Commissioner Of Income Tax Versusdolphin And Company v. Bakre, Jj.-Date:19Th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 397 OF 2011INSTAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 446 OF 2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VersusDOLPHIN AND COMPANY ... Applicant ... Respondent Mrs. Asha A. Dessai, Advocate for the applicant.Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the respondent. P.C. -Coram:S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &U. V. BAKRE, JJ.-Date:19th March, 2012 In this application on board, the applicant seeks condonationof delay in filing the review petition, seeking review of the order,passed in the subject-appeal. 2. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the Assessee that thisCourt has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this application, becausein law no review is maintainable. Mrs. Dessai appearing on behalf ofthe Revenue would urge that there is a distinction between seekingcondonation of delay in filing a review and maintainability of thereview itself and, therefore, this Court is not called upon, at thisstage, to rule on the maintainability of the review petition. 3. Bearing in mind that there is an issue of jurisdiction andmaintainability of the review petition, we are of the opinion that theinterest of justice would be served if the delay in presenting thereview petition is condoned, but by specifically keeping open objections of the respondent/assessee to the maintainability of thesaid petition. 4. Therefore, keeping open all contentions on the point ofjurisdiction and maintainability, the delay is condoned. Miscellaneous Civil Application stands allowed accordingly, but,without any direction to pay costs. � Place the review petitions for admission on 26th March, 2012. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SMA U. V. BAKRE, J.