1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court revives appeal after delay, citing unintentional delay and Counsel's lapse.</h1> The High Court of Bombay allowed the civil application for condonation of delay, noting the delay was not intentional. The court set aside the order of ... Delay of 35 days in filing appeal cannot be said to be intentional or mala fide - Delay is condoned - Notice to assessee was returned unserved & thereafter no steps taken for effecting service - ground quoted in application for setting aside the dismissal order is that in workload, office lost sight of the fact that the matter was dismissed for default for not taking further steps - lapse on part of office of Counsel should not be suffered by applicant – appeal restored Issues: Condonation of delay in filing civil application, Setting aside order of dismissal of appealIn the present judgment by the High Court of Bombay, the issues revolve around the condonation of delay in filing a civil application and setting aside the order of dismissal of an appeal. The court, comprising N.V. Dabholkar and M.G. Gaikwad, JJ., heard arguments from the Assistant Solicitor General for the applicant and Advocate Shri A.P. Basarkar for the respondent.Regarding the delay of 35 days in filing the civil application, the court noted that the delay was not intentional or mala fide. Although Advocate Shri Basarkar opposed the condonation of delay, the court found that the reasons for the delay were explained in the application. Consequently, the civil application for condonation of delay was allowed, and the delay was condoned.In the context of setting aside the order of dismissal of the appeal, the court observed that the parent appeal had already been admitted but further steps were not taken for effecting service to the sole respondent. Advocate Shri Basarkar vehemently opposed setting aside the dismissal order. However, the court considered the grounds cited in the application, which indicated a lapse on the part of the office of the Counsel for the applicant or his staff. The court held that the applicant should not suffer due to this lapse and allowed the civil application. As a result, the First Appeal was restored to the file with the original order date, deemed ready for final hearing, and added to the board of final hearing matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
