Commissioner Of Income Tax Xiv Mumbai v. Narayandas Suganmal
High Court
18 Jul 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax Xiv Mumbai v. Narayandas Suganmal
Date of order
18 Jul 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax Xiv Mumbai v. Narayandas Suganmal, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1973 OF 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.77 OF 1999
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.77 OF 1999
Commissioner of Income Tax XIV Mumbai .. Appellant
V/s
Narayandas Suganmal .. Respondent
Mr.E.P.Chopra for the Appellant.
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.H.BHATIA, JJ.
J.H.BHATIA, JJ.
DATE : 18/07/2005.
DATE : 18/07/2005.
DATE : 18/07/2005.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking to
recall the order dated 4th July, 2005 whereby the Income
Tax Appeal was dismissed in default. Perused the
affidavit of an Advocate Shri.Devi Sharan Chopra dated
12.7.2005 in support of the Notice of Motion. For the
reasons stated therein sufficient cause is made out for
recalling the order of dismissal of an Appeal. There is
no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on
the part of the Appellant. Hence, Notice of Motion is
made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(J.H.BHATIA J.)
(J.H.BHATIA 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.
EaseValue