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

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S.m.visvesvaraya Industrial

High Court 29 Aug 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S.m.visvesvaraya Industrial
Date of order
29 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S.m.visvesvaraya Industrial, the High Court (2007) 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.
(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1912 OF 2005 IN INCOME TAX ALPPEAL LODG. NO.696 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-tax-..Appellant Vs. M/s.M.Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre....Respondents Mr. A.S. Rao for the Appellants. Mr. Firoze B. Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate with Kejal C. Rasputra i/b. Little & Co., for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2007 J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C.: P.C.: . By this Motion the Appellants seek condonation of delay of 357 days. The Appellate order was passed on 29th July,2003. According to the Appellants it was received in the office of the CIT, City-12, Mumbai on 17th February, 2004. Thereafter it is seen that the Chief, CIT, granted approval for filing Appeal on 28th May, 2004. Thereafter there is no explanation as to what happened except setting out that it was beyond the control of the Appellants office. The Appeal thereafter was filed on 3rd June, 2005. 2. On behalf of the Respondents a reply has (-2-) been filed by Y.R. Warerkar, Executive Director opposing the motion for condonation of delay. It is contended that the affidavit does not disclose any cause which will amount to sufficient cause. In the affidavit various omissions and/or giving of wrong dates is also pointed out. Reliance is placed on various judgments to contend that the delay should not be condoned. 3. We have considered the case. The tax effect is in a sum of Rs.84,44,000/-. Even considering that in such matter Courts where governmental bodies are concerned should consider Government lethargy, nevertheless we find that no explanation whatsoever is given in the affidavit in support of the motion between 28th May, 2004 and 3rd June, 2005. . Considering the above in our opinion the cause shown would not amount to sufficient cause and consequently Motion dismissed. (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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