Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. R...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Rama Capital & Fiscal Services

High Court 02 Apr 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Rama Capital & Fiscal Services
Date of order
02 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Rama Capital & Fiscal Services, the High Court (2009) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2508 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4663 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1912 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Rama Capital & Fiscal Services Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.J.D. Mistri with Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: . This court by order dated 28.3.2008 had granted 12 weeks time to the Revenue to pay the cost quantified at Rs.2500/- and remove the office objections if any. The last date for paying the cost and removing office objections would be 27.6.2008. The appellant failed to comply with the said order and consequently the appeal could not have been registered. The learned counsel also points out that the office objections also have not been removed. . This motion is taken out for condoning, according (-2-) to Revenue 11 days delay in paying the cost which was quantified. There is no reason in so far as removal of office objections. The reason given in the affidavit in support are administrative difficulties. It is pointed out that the cheque was drawn by the Zonal Accounts Office only on 13.6,2008 and in these circumstances, that the delay be condoned. . Firstly, the time having expired it will be debatable where this court would have jurisdiction to extend the period. Even assuming so, the order was to pay costs and remove office objections. The only explanation given is in respect of the payment of cost. There is no explanation for not removing the office objections. On behalf of the assessee, the learned counsel points out that considering that as the appellants have failed to show any cause, for not removing office objections, the motion is liable be dismissed. Considering the above, in our opinion, no case made out either for extension of time or condonation of delay and consequently motion dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan