C.I.T. - I, Kolkata v. M/s. M.S.L. Industries Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0205-22]

Citation 2015-LL-0205-22
Appellant Name C.I.T. - I, Kolkata
Respondent Name M/s. M.S.L. Industries Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/02/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags condonation of delay • prescribed time
Bot Summary: ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT The Court : The appeal was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by order dated 26th June, 2002 and copy of the order, according to the appellant, was received on 7th August, 2002. Time to prefer an appeal expired on 4th December, 2002 but the decision to prefer an appeal was taken on 8th January, 2003, that is to say after the 2 prescribed time for preferring an appeal had expired. They took their own time and the appeal was presented on 30th July, 2003. It is alleged that due to unavoidable circumstances the appeal could not be presented in time. Learned advocate appearing for the assessee vehemently opposed the prayer for the condonation of delay. Considering that there is no ground made out for condonation, there is no reason why we should condone the delay of 237 days. The prayer for condonation of delay is rejected.


ORDER SHEET ITA NO.229 OF 2003 GA NO.3223 OF 2003 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T., KOLKATA- I Versus M/S. M.S.L. INDUSTRIES LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 5th February, 2015. MRS.SMITA DAS DE,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT MR.SAIKAT GHOSAL,.ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Court : appeal was disposed of by learned Tribunal by order dated 26th June, 2002 and copy of order, according to appellant, was received on 7th August, 2002. Time to prefer appeal expired on 4th December, 2002 but decision to prefer appeal was taken on 8th January, 2003, that is to say after 2 prescribed time for preferring appeal had expired. Even thereafter no urgency was shown. They took their own time and appeal was presented on 30th July, 2003. It is alleged that due to unavoidable circumstances appeal could not be presented in time. unavoidable circumstances have not even been hinted at in application under Section 5. Learned advocate appearing for assessee vehemently opposed prayer for condonation of delay. Considering that there is no ground made out for condonation, there is no reason why we should condone delay of 237 days. Therefore, prayer for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently appeal is also dismissed. Vakalatnama and affidavit of competency filed in Court be kept on record. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb. C.I.T. - I, Kolkata v. M/s. M.S.L. Industries Ltd
Report Error