1 2025:CGHC:52633-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 1078 of 2025 1 - Shri Gyan Chand Tatiya S/o Thakurlal Tatiya Aged About 61 Years 14/650/7, Ahead Chotu Kiraya Bhandar, Mohaba Bazar, Tatiband, Raipur C.G.- 492001, Pan- Adept 6391 E ... Applicant versus 1 - Income Tax Officer Ward -2(1), Raipur Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Adv. DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board (29/10/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of application for restoration. 2. Issue notice to respondent on I.A. No. 01/2025. 3. Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.10.29 16:56:31 +0530 2 4. Upon due consideration and for the reasons stated in the application, the I.A. No. 01/2025 is allowed and the delay of 43 days in filing the MCC is hereby condoned. 5. Also heard on MCC. 6. The present MCC has been filed seeking for restoration of TAXC No. 52/2025 which got dismissed on account of peremptory order passed by this Court on 28.02.2025. 7. The record shows that on 28.02.2025, the applicant had been given time to rectify the default, which was not rectified. This Court granted four weeks’ time to rectify the default with a peremptory order that, failing to rectify the default, the tax case would stand automatically dismissed without reference to the Bench. It appears that the applicant could not rectify the default within the stipulated time, and by virtue of the peremptory order, the tax case was dismissed. It also appears that thereafter, the applicant had filed an MCC bearing number 748/2025 for restoration of the tax case, which was allowed vide order dated 25.07.2025, but the tax case has not been restored as one of the pages of the typed copy filed by the applicant in the covering memo was not proper. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said defect pointed out by the Registry was never informed to the applicant at any stage, despite the applicant having 3 cured the defects well within the time granted by this Court. He also submits that he is sincerely apologetic for the inconvenience caused to this Court and submits that he would be vigilant in the future to avoid any such eventuality. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons mentioned in the application, the MCC is allowed and TAXC No. 52/2025 is directed to be restored to its original number. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge H.L. Sahu