The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.tarun Shipping & Inds.ltd
High Court
10 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.tarun Shipping & Inds.ltd
Date of order
10 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
1998-1999
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.tarun Shipping & Inds.ltd, the High Court (2008) 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4410 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4410 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4410 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.32 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Tarun Shipping & Inds.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.R.Asokan for the Appellant.
Mr.Sameer Dalal for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
DATE : 10th June, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 1425 days delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Last time, we found the affidavit in support of
the Notice of Motion to be totally unsatisfactory, hence
we had directed the Appellant to file better affidavit
thereby explaining the delay in a fair and reasonable
manner. Mr.Asokan, the learned Counsel for the
Appellant states that the concerned officer is on leave
and will resume on 16th June, 2008 and hence the better
affidavit has not been filed. So far as appeal is
concerned, it pertains to the Assessment Year 1998-1999
and the ITAT’s order is dated 14th June, 2002 and hence,
we do not find any reasonable ground to grant any
further adjournment. Any officer of the Appellant other
than the aforesaid concerned officer who has gone on
leave, could have filed better affidavit explaining the
( 2 )
delay, but there is no such better affidavit. It seems
that the Appellant has no interest in pursuing the
matter. The affidavit in support does not even mention
as to when the folder was sent to the Advocate for
drafting the memo of Appeal. The said affidavit is
totally silent about the delay. No sufficient cause is
made out for condoning the delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the
ITXA (L) No.32 of 2007 also stands dismissed.
(A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(A.V.NIRGUDE, 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.