Gujarat High Court High Court

M/S vs Income on 17 January, 2011

Gujarat High Court
M/S vs Income on 17 January, 2011
Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Honourable H.B.Antani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

OJCA/384/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 384 of 2010
 

In


 

STAMP
NUMBER No. 1765 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================


 

M/S
VRINDAVAN SILK MILLS - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

INCOME
TAX OFFICER - Respondent(s)
 

========================================= 
Appearance
: 
MR MANISH J
SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR MR BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE with MRS MAUNA M BHATT
for Respondent(s) : 1, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

                              and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR. JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 17/01/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per :

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1. By
this application, the applicant – original appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 91 days that had occasioned in preferring Tax
Appeal Stamp No.1765 of 2010.

2. Mr.

Manish Shah, learned advocate for the applicant has invited the
attention of the Court to the averments made in the application to
submit that on account of illness of the partner, he had forgotten to
send the copy of the impugned order to the learned advocate for
filing the tax appeal. A certificate evidencing his treatment has
been annexed alongwith the application. It is submitted that there
was no deliberate negligence on the part of the applicant and as
such, the delay is required to be condoned.

3. On
the other hand, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent has submitted that there is considerable
delay in preferring the tax appeal which has not been properly
explained.

4. Having
regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the
parties and considering the averments made in the application, the
Court is of the view that the delay caused in filing the Tax Appeal
has been sufficiently explained.

5. In
the circumstances, the application succeeds and is accordingly
allowed. The delay caused in preferring Tax Appeal Stamp No.1765 of
2010 is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no
order as to costs.

(
Harsha Devani, J. )

(
H.B. Antani, J. )

hki

   

Top