The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.aristo Realty Developers Ltd
High Court
16 Dec 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.aristo Realty Developers Ltd
Date of order
16 Dec 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.aristo Realty Developers Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: We are not inclined to entertain the present 4.In view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the above Appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2275 OF 2008
ININCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1386 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income TaxVs.
..Appellant
M/s.Aristo Realty Developers Ltd.
..Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.P.C.Tripathi with Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &V.C.DAGA, JJ.DATE : 16TH DECEMBER, 2008
P.C.
1.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Bythis Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking thecondonation of 1514 days’ delay in filing the above
Appeal.
2.In the above, the Appellant is challenging theorder dated 22nd September, 2003 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal. It appears that the ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax had granted the approvalfor filing an Appeal on 31st May, 2004. However, thepresent Appeal has been lodged only on 9th May, 2008i.e. after a lapse of almost 4 years. The reasonsgiven for causing such a gross delay are, that theAppellant has been diligently following the matter forfiling the Appeal on due date itself, however for thereasons beyond the control of the Appellant which
includes the administrative difficulties, the Appeal
could not be filed in time.
3. We are not at all satisfied with the reasons givenfor condoning the aforesaid delay in filing the aboveAppeal. We are not inclined to entertain the present
4.In view of the dismissal of the Notice of
Motion, the above Appeal also stands dismissed.
Compliance report, if submitted, would be highly
appreciated.
(V.C.DAGA,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.