Case Law › High Court › Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax Circ...

Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax Circle v. Pandurang Timblo Industrias,Thr. Its Constituted Attorney,Anant Lawande

High Court 03 Feb 2020 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · hcbgoa

Parties

Date of order

03 Feb 2020

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

Case summary

In Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax Circle v. Pandurang Timblo Industrias,Thr. Its Constituted Attorney,Anant Lawande, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

1 MCA No.1023/2019 dtd. 03.02.20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1023 OF 2019 IN STA NO.3686 OF 2019 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 1,MARGAO AND ANR. .... Applicants Versus PANDURANG TIMBLO INDUSTRIAS,THR. ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,ANANT LAWANDE. .... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Petitioners. Coram:- M.S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ. Date:- 3rd February, 2020 P.C.: Heard Ms. Linhares for the applicants. 2. The report of the Registry indicates that the service is dulycompleted in this matter. However, neither the representative of therespondents nor any advocate for the respondents appears. 2 MCA No.1023/2019 dtd. 03.02.20 3. We have perused the cause shown by the respondent in itsapplication dated 04.11.2019. According to us, the cause shown, isquite sufficient to condone the delay of 57 days in filing this reviewapplication. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of thisMiscellaneous Civil Application No.1023/2019. The Registry to nowregister the review petition and place the same for admission before theappropriate Bench. SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J. ss

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA

This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.

Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.