C.I.T. WB-I v. Bhagya Lakshmi Commercial Co.(P) Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0428-28]

Citation 2015-LL-0428-28
Appellant Name C.I.T. WB-I
Respondent Name Bhagya Lakshmi Commercial Co.(P) Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 28/04/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: He submitted that Rule was issued on 2.3.2000. From the paper book filed in this case it appears that on 5th September, 2005 an order was passed from which it appears that the appeal was filed with deficit court fees. In 2005 liberty was granted to pay the deficit court fees. There is nothing before us to show whether the deficit court fees have at all been paid. There is nothing before us to show whether Rule was ever issued. There is even nothing before us to show whether Rule was drawn up and completed. The appeal was dismissed for default and subsequently restored on 19th August, 2013.


ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA 84 of 2000 C.I.T.WB-I Versus BHAGYA LAKSHMI COMMERCIAL CO.(P) LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 28th April, 2015. Mr. M.P. Agarwal with Md. Nizamuddin, Advocates Court : Mr. Agarwal appeared for appellant. He submitted that Rule was issued on 2.3.2000. No copy of order was, however, produced before us. However, from paper book filed in this case it appears that on 5th September, 2005 order was passed from which it appears that appeal was filed with deficit court fees. In 2005 liberty was granted to pay deficit court fees. There is nothing before us to show whether deficit court fees have at all been paid. There is nothing before us to show whether Rule was ever issued. There is even nothing before us to show whether Rule was drawn up and completed. appeal was dismissed for default and subsequently restored on 19th August, 2013. Thereafter, appeal was listed under heading For Dismissal on 31st March, 2015 when Mr. Agarwal appeared and he was granted time to serve. In spite thereof, no steps were taken to serve. 2 We are, as such, convinced that appellant is not interested. appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sm C.I.T. WB-I v. Bhagya Lakshmi Commercial Co.(P) Ltd
Report Error