In Commissioner Of Income-Tax-18 v. Mr.arun S.kaigaonkar, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: As the motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands 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.1575 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.756 OF 2007
Commissioner of Income-tax-18 ..Appellant
Versus
Mr.Arun S.Kaigaonkar ..Respondent
----
Mr.R.G.Bhat & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mr.P.J.Pardiwala with A.K.Jasani for respondent.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello &
R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 20.02.2008
PC
1. This is a motion for condoning 375 days delay in
filing of the main appeal. On perusal of the
affidavit-in-support, we find that the order of the
Income-tax Tribunal was passed on 18.10.2005 and the
case was sent to the concerned assessing officer on
19.12.2005. It was thereafter sent to CIT-18 on
2.11.2006. The delay caused during the period
19.12.2005 and 2.11.2006 has not been properly
explained. In our view, cause shown does not amount
to sufficient cause. Hence motion dismissed.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.756 OF 2007
. As the motion for condoning delay is dismissed,
appeal also stands dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
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.