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.)
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.