The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Plastochem Industries
High Court
09 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Plastochem Industries
Date of order
09 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Plastochem Industries, 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.
((-1-))
HVN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2469 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1358 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Plastochem Industries ... Respondent
Mr. R.G. Bhat for the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: JANUARY 09, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. This is a notice of motion for condoning delay of
392 days in filing the main tax appeal. The office has recalculated the delay as 450 days. Be that as it may. On perusal of the affidavit in support of the notice of Motion, we find that the file was sent to the Law Ministry for drafting the appeal memo on
the notice of Motion, we find that the file was sent to the Law Ministry for drafting the appeal memo on 29.6.2005 and thereafter the draft appeal was
received on 6.4.2006. In our view, the period of
more than 1 year for drafting of appeal memo cannot
be said to be reasonable. In the circumstances,
sufficient cause is not shown to condone the delay.
Hence, Notice of Motion is dismissed.
((-2-))
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, 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.