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.)
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.