A review petition regarding an income tax appeal was dismissed due to excessive delay of eight years in filing and negligence. The court also held the petition misconceived as the cited apex court decision was already relied upon in the impugned order.
Review Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
56-08-RPAL==.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 56 OF 2008 IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax City-XIV, Mumbai
.. Petitioner
v/s.
M/s. Parsi Dairy Farm
.. Respondent
Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w N.A. Kazi for the petitioner Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Atul Jasani for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.
DATED : 5th AUGUST, 2016.
P.C.
Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 300 ITR 403.
taken no steps to pursue the present petition. In fact, the objections to the present petition were removed only on 1st March, 2016. After the objections were removed the petition was numbered and it appeared on
1 of 3
Uday S. Jagtap
56-08-RPAL==.doc
board on 1st July, 2016 and was adjourned from time to time.
2 of 3
Uday S. Jagtap
56-08-RPAL==.doc
28th August, 2008 cannot be a subject matter of Review on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Sahara India (Firm) (supra). This for the reason that it has in fact been referred to and relied upon by the order dated 28th August, 2008 rejecting the Revenue's appeal at which time, the Revenue was also represented.
(A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
3 of 3
Uday S. Jagtap
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Review Petition should be entertained given the excessive delay of eight years and negligence in filing.
Whether the order dated 28th August, 2008 is a valid subject matter for review based on the decision in Sahara India (Firm).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sahara India (Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income TaxReferred¶1
Sahara India (Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 300 ITR 403
The Commissioner of Income Tax City-XIV, Mumbai
M/s. Parsi Dairy Farm
M.S. SANKLECHA
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
