The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Trust House Commerce Centre

(-1-) hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 440 OF 2009 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 440 OF 2009 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 440 OF 2009 IN IN IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3627 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3627 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3627 OF 2003 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1194 OF 2003The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1194 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Trust House Commerce Centre Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. R.Ashokan for the Appellant. Ms. Aasifa Khan for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: . The appeal itself was filed beyond the period of limitation. The delay was 196 days and accordingly motion was taken out for condoning the delay. The Motion came up for hearing firstly on 26.2.2004 and thereafter on 16.4.2007 on which date it was dismissed for default. The respondents were represented. The respondents have filed their affidavit opposing the condonation of delay. . The revenue has thereafter taken out fresh motion on 29.1.2009.By this motion, the relief sought is for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 16.4.2007 and for condoning the delay in taking out (-2-) the motion for restoration. . The counsel for the assessee opposes the condonation of delay. It is pointed out that the motion was dismissed on 16.4.2007. The application for restoration was moved only on 29.1.2009 i.e. nearly 1 year and 9 months after the dismissal of the motion for condonation of delay. . In the affidavit filed by Smt. S.R.Puri the only explanation given is that the matter missed the attention of the concerned officer. The letter dated 9.5.2008 sets out that the matter was filed on 16.4.2007 and due to work pressure the matter escaped her attention. . There is no explanation in the affidavit as to when the revenue came to know about the order of dismissal. One could understand if that had been done and the explanation offered. In the absence of disclosing when they had knowledge of dismissal of the order and merely stating that they received certified copy of order on 7.4.2008 in our opinion, would not amount to sufficient cause. Considering the above, motion dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)