SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KANWAL KRISHAN, P.V.B.RAO
FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD. – Appellant
Versus
INCOME-TAX OFFICER – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Harish Salve, K.P. Sahashrabdha,P.N. Misra, M.S. Goela, Wazir Singh

ORDER

1. The revenue has filed IT Appeal No. 107 (Nag.) of 1981. The assessee has filed cross-objection No. 5 (Nag.) of 1981. In addition, the assessee has also filed an appeal in which the same grounds. are taken as in the cross-objection and that appeal is IT Appeal No. 157 (Nag.) of 1981. All these relate to the assessment year 1972-73. 17 Appeal No. 157 (Nag.) of 1981 has been filed late and the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. According to the assessee's application, the delay occurred because the assessee's appeals were heard in Delhi being transferred from time to time by the President on the application of the assessee for the earlier years. For this year, the assessee sent the papers to Delhi for filing the appeal but it was later on found that the appeal should have been filed only at Nagpur. In this process a short delay occurred. Having perused the assessee's application and also having heard the arguments of both the sides, we Condone the delay. As already mentioned, the grounds taken in the appeal are identical with the grounds taken in the cross- objection and, therefore, it makes no difference even if we condone the delay and hear the appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top