Disposed

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Ms Gahna

Jharkhand HC7 Mar 2024C.M.P./13/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income tax department sought condonation of a 06-day delay and restoration of Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2016 dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-emptory order. The Court condoned the delay, allowed the interlocutory application, restored the appeal subject to removal of defects within two weeks, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 06 days condoned; I.A. No. 2093 of 2024 allowed; Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2016 restored to file subject to removal of surviving defects within two weeks.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Vs Ms Gahna — Income Tax | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 13 of 2017

¶3

-----

¶4

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Central Revenue Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Gahna, Check Post Chas, Bokaro… Opp. Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶9

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate : For the Opp. Party

¶10

¶11

Order No. 06 / Dated 07^th March, 2024

¶12

I.A. No. 2093 of 2024

¶13

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 06 days in preferring this Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

¶14

2. Heard the parties.

¶15

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 06 days in preferring the instant petition is hereby condoned.

¶16

4. I.A. No. 2093 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶17

C.M.P. No. 13 of 2017

¶18

5. The instant application has been filed for restoration of Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2016, which was

¶19

¶20

dismissed for non-compliance of pre-emptory order dated 22.11.2016.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2016, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 22.11.2022, may be restored to its original file otherwise the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶22

This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the reason assigned in the instant Civil Miscellaneous petition, deems it fit and proper to restore Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2016, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 22.11.2022, to its original file.

¶23

In view thereof, Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2016 is restored to its original file, subject to removal of surviving defects within two weeks from today.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶26

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

¶27

Umesh/

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Ms Gahna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central v. Ms Gahna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar Alias Mithun Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand Krantikari Mazdoor Union through Its General Secretary Dinesh Chandra Gohain Vs Bokaro Power Supply Company (P) Ltd. Chairman and Member (Finance) D v C

Birendra Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Lakhan Mahto Vs the Chairman Jharkhand State Electricity Board