The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Vi, Mumbai v. M/S. Tata Infomedia Limited, Mumbai
High Court
02 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Vi, Mumbai v. M/S. Tata Infomedia Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
02 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Vi, Mumbai v. M/S. Tata Infomedia Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In this view of the matter, for want of Notices of motion as well as sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, both the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation as well as for want of prosecution with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2359 OF 2008
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2360 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s. Tata Infomedia Limited, Mumbai
..Respondent.
Mr.Dhananjay Athavale for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2[nd] July, 2009
P.C. :
1.The learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits that he has not been briefed in these appeals, even the papers are not supplied to him by the department. Under these circumstances, he is unable to proceed with the matter. Faced with this situation, we have no option but to dismiss the appeals for want of prosecution.
2.At this juncture, needless to mention that though both the appeals are barred by limitation by 147 days, no notices of motion are taken out by the revenue for condonation of delay. It is also relevant to note here
that though there is a prayer for condonation of delay in both these appeals, however no material facts and/or particulars are disclosed in the appeal memo much less a statement on oath giving explanation is filed on record.
3.In this view of the matter, for want of Notices of motion as well as sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, both the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation as well as for want of prosecution with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, 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.
EaseValue