Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Executor O...

Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Executor Of The Estate Of Late

High Court 04 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Executor Of The Estate Of Late
Date of order
04 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Executor Of The Estate Of Late, 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3006 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1597 OF 2006 Commissioner of Income-tax- ..Appellant Versus Executor of the Estate of Late Dinshah J.Gazdar ..Respondent ---- Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Madhur Agrawal for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 4.2.2008 PC 1. This is a motion for condoning 359 days delay in filing of the main appeal. A perusal of the affidavit-in-support indicates that the matter was forwarded to the Ministry of Law sometime after 12.8.2005 for drafting the appeal memo and the appeal ultimately came to be filed on 25.8.2006. No dates have been given in respect of the events which occurred between the aforesaid two dates. In our view, cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion dismissed. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1597 OF 2006 . As the motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed. (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