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

PDF · subscribers
CA/2874/2019HC GujaratGJHC24056534201919 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, and the delay was condoned. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs. The judgment does not record any decision on the merits of the Tax Appeal itself, as the focus was solely on the condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Applicant) filed a Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat 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 (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'C', in ITA No. 205/Ahd/2014. The respondent is M/s Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. The application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court heard submissions from both the applicant and the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of five days in filing the Tax Appeal is sufficiently explained, warranting condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? Assessee's Contentions (Applicant - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax): The applicant contended that there was a delay of five days in filing the Tax Appeal and sought condonation of this delay by filing the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The applicant provided averments in the memorandum of application to explain the delay. Revenue's Contentions (Respondent - M/s Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd.): No specific contentions are recorded for the respondent in the judgment regarding the delay condonation application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/CA/2874/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2874 of 2019 In F/TAX APPEAL NO. 10341 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. 205/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/2874/2019 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 →