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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.efficient Builders

High Court 23 Jul 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.efficient Builders
Date of order
23 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.efficient Builders, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: On failure to pay costs Appeal to stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

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.2237 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1139 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant Vs. M/s.Efficient Builders ..Respondents Mr.B.M. Chatterjee with Ms. P.P.Bhosale i/b. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. Mr. Deepak Tavalshawala with Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi, for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&A.A.SAYED,JJ.DATED: 23RD JULY,2007 A.A.SAYED DATED: 23RD JULY,2007 P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. There is a delay of 242 days in preferring the Appeal. Shri C. James George has filed an affidavit in support of the Motion setting out the cause for the delay. 2. On behalf of the Respondents learned Counsel contends that the cause shown in the affidavit would not amount to sufficient cause as the explanation given for the delay are general. 3. As now observed and held by the Supreme Court what has to be considered is justice of the matter. It is not that day-to-day delay should be (-2-) explained. In our opinion what is set out in para.2 of the affidavit though there is no explanation of day-to-day delay, it would amount to sufficient cause. At the highest the petitioner can be saddled with costs. In the light of that delay condoned. Motion made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the appellant paying to the respondents costs quantified at Rs.2,500/- Costs to be paid within four weeks. On payment of such costs Appeal to be registered. On failure to pay costs Appeal to stand dismissed without reference to the Court. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.) (A.A. SAYED, 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