The High Court dismissed a motion filed in an Income Tax Appeal due to an inordinate delay of 364 days without any explanation from the appellant. The cause shown was found to be insufficient to overcome the delay.
Motion dismissed on account of failure to show sufficient cause for the delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
((-1-))
HVN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1183 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 604 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Roha Dyechem Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. B.M. Chatterjee with Ms. P.P. Bhosale and Mr.
P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Shah for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: OCTOBER 15, 2007
P.C.
. The delay is of 364 days. There is affidavit in
support of the motion. The order was received on
24.12.2004. The file was sent to Ministry of Law on
27.4.2005. The draft appeal memo was received on
15.12.2005. The court fees were made available on
9.3.2006 and the appeal was filed on 7.4.2006.
There is no explanation for the delay between
27.4.2005 and 15.12.2005. Considering the above,
the cause shown would not amount to sufficient
cause. Hence, motion dismissed.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 364 days in filing the notice of motion constituted sufficient cause.
The Commissioner of Income Tax
M/s. Roha Dyechem Ltd.
F.I. Rebello
J.P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court