M/s. East West Finvest Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

East West Finvest sought restoration of TAXC 84/2024, dismissed for want of prosecution on 24 July 2025. Its restoration application, MCC 1039/2025, was delayed by 43 days.

Source: PDF p. 2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court found sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowed IA 1, admitted the restoration application and heard it finally with consent. The detailed reasons in the application are not reproduced.

Source: PDF p. 1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

TAXC 84/2024 was restored to its original number subject to Rs.5,000 costs payable to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee and filing proof before the Court within 15 days from 31 October 2025. Failure to deposit within that period would automatically dissolve this order without further reference to the Bench.

Source: PDF p. 2

4. OUTCOME

Procedural relief: delay condoned and restoration granted conditionally; the underlying tax appeal remained for hearing and disposal.

Source: PDF p. 2

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Two distinct procedural decisions

Condonation addressed the 43-day delay in the restoration application. Restoration addressed the earlier non-prosecution dismissal. Neither determination decides the substantive tax grounds in TAXC 84/2024.

Source: PDF p. 1

The cost condition is operative

Payment and filing proof are expressly required within 15 days from the order date. The automatic-dissolution clause specifically addresses failure to deposit. A case-history note must not describe unconditional restoration or assume later compliance.

Source: PDF p. 2

Do not invent the sufficient cause

The Court accepted reasons stated in the application but did not reproduce them. Illness, counsel error or another specific explanation cannot responsibly be added to the published account.

Source: PDF p. 1