Farooq R. Tanwar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 10(3
High Court
16 Sep 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Farooq R. Tanwar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 10(3
Date of order
16 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Farooq R. Tanwar v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 10(3, the High Court (2011) allowed 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2642 OF 2011
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.779 OF 2011
Farooq R. TanwarVersusThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward 10(3)
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.P.P. Pandit with Mr.P.P. Prabhu for the appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 16th September 2011
1.This Notice of Motion is taken out seeking condonation of 1309 days delay in filing the appeal.
2.The assessee had filed Income Tax Appeal No.2390 of 2009 to challenge the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 7[th] November 2007. That appeal was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 4[th] February 2010 with liberty to the appellant to take appropriate proceedings as is permissible in law. Thereafter, the assessee has taken out present Notice of Motion belatedly on 7[th] September 2011. In our opinion, the reasons set out
in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
3.However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the
appellant to the respondent within two weeks from today.
4.Subject to payment of cost as condition precedent, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(K.K. Tated, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, 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.