Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
HARSHA DEVANI, SANGEETA K. VISHEN, JJ
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT CO OP MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD – Respondent
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2869 of 2019|F/TAX APPEAL NO. 27934 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR.VARUN K.PATEL
For the Respondents: NOTICE SERVED BY DS
The court due to sufficient cause condoned the delay in filing a tax appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 457-day delay in filing a tax appeal. The court finds merit in the explanation provided for the delay, stating that sufficient cause for condonation has been demonstrated. Consequently, the application is allowed, and the appeal's delay is condoned.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for condonation of delay. (Para 1) |
| 2. explanation for delay suffices. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. application allowed, delay condoned. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act , 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 457 days caused in filing the captioned tax appeal.
2. Heard Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the applicant. Despite service of notice of Rule, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.
3. From the averments made in the memorandum of the application it emerges that the applicant had preferred a consolidated appeal against the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal in both the assessee's appeal as well as the department's appeal for assessment year 2009-2010.
Since there was some delay in preferring the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed which came to be condoned. However, due to inadvertence, as a combined appeal had been filed in respect of the assessee's appeal as well as the department's appeal, a separate appeal was required to be filed and hence, in respect of assessee's appeal, the present appeal came to be filed.
4. In the light of the explanation put forth explaining the delay in preferring the present appeal, the court is of the view that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay caused in filing the captioned tax appeal.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The delay caused in filing the tax appeal is hereby condoned.
6. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) RAVI P. PATEL
