THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS AND CHEMICALS LTD

PDF · subscribers
CA/2871/2019HC GujaratGJHC24056530201919 November 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for both parties, and particularly the averments made in the memorandum of application, was of the view that the delay of five days in preferring the appeal had been sufficiently explained. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was allowed. The rule was made absolute, condoning the delay in filing the Tax Appeal. No order as to costs was made. The judgment does not record any specific findings on the merits of the Tax Appeal itself, as the decision pertains solely to the condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The applicant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, filed a Civil Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a five-day delay in filing a Tax Appeal. The Tax Appeal challenges an order dated September 26, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘C’, in ITA No. 15/Ahd/2014. The respondent is M/s Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. The High Court heard submissions from both parties regarding the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of five days in filing the Tax Appeal is sufficiently explained and warrants condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Assessee's Arguments: The applicant (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) argued that the delay of five days was sufficiently explained and sought condonation of this delay to pursue the Tax Appeal. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the provided text. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent (M/s Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd.) did not present any arguments against the condonation of delay as recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 17 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

C/CA/2871/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2871 of 2019 In F/TAX APPEAL NO. 10340 of 2019 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus M/S DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS AND CHEMICALS LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 19/11/2019

ORAL 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   five   days   caused   in filing   the   captioned   tax   appeal,   wherein   the order   dated   26.09.2018   made   by   the   Income   Tax Appellate   Tribunal,   Ahmedabad   Bench   ‘C’   in   ITA No. 15/Ahd/2014 is subject matter of challenge. 2. Heard   Mrs.   Mauna   Bhatt,   learned   senior standing   counsel   for   the   applicant   and   Ms. Vaibhavi   Parikh,   learned   advocate   for   the respondent. Page 1 of 2

C/CA/2871/2019 ORDER 3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and more particularly, considering the averments made in the memorandum of application, the court is of the view that the delay that has occasioned in   preferring   the   appeal   has   been   sufficiently explained.   The   application,   therefore,   succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The delay caused in filing   the   captioned   tax   appeal   is   hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) PRAVIN KARUNAN Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →