Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income-Tax-11 Mumbai v....

Commissioner Of Income-Tax-11 Mumbai v. Chandrakant A.mehta

High Court 14 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax-11 Mumbai v. Chandrakant A.mehta
Date of order
14 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income-Tax-11 Mumbai v. Chandrakant A.mehta, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: As the Notice of Motion is dismissed, appeal is also dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2937 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2937 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.1413 OF 2006 Commissioner of Income-tax-11 Mumbai..Appellant Versus Chandrakant A.Mehta ..Respondent ---- Mr.A.D.Kango for the appellant. ---- Coram : F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 14.01.2008. PC 1. The order of ITAT was received on 5.7.2005. The last date of filing of the appeal was 2.11.2005. The file was returned back by the Ministry on 13.12.2005. Counsel to whom file was given for drafting the appeal, returned the same on 17.1.2006. The file was sent to another Counsel for drafting on 18.1.2006 which was returned after the gap of 3 months. The file was sent to another Counsel. Thereafter another Counsel submits draft appeal on 10.4.2006. The appeal was filed on 4.8.2006. There is no explanation for the period from 18.1.2006 to 10.4.2006 and 10.4.2006 to 3.8.2006. Considering the above, the cause shown is not sufficient cause. Hence, Motion dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE,J) (F.I.REBELLO,J) (R.S.MOHITE,J) (F.I.REBELLO,J) (R.S.MOHITE,J) (F.I.REBELLO,J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.1413 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.1413 OF 2006 Commissioner of Income-tax-11 Mumbai..Appellant Versus Chandrakant A.Mehta ..Respondent ---- Mr.A.D.Kango for the appellant. ---- Coram : F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ Coram : F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 14.01.2008. PC 1. As the Notice of Motion is dismissed, appeal is also dismissed. Refund of court fee as per rules. Certified copy expedited. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan