Ia/1658/2020 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 29, Mumbai v. Navin J Doshi
High Court
30 Aug 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ia/1658/2020 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 29, Mumbai v. Navin J Doshi
Date of order
30 Aug 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ia/1658/2020 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 29, Mumbai v. Navin J Doshi, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Since it is an appeal filed bythe revenue, purely by way of indulgence we allow application and restorethe appeal but certainly respondent’s counsel is not unjustified in seekingcost.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2021.09.0111:25:52+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1658 OF 2020IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1921 OF 2018
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-29, Mumbai
….Appellant/Applicant
V/s.
Navin J. Doshi
…Respondent
----
Mr. Arvind Pinto for applicant/appellantMs Asifa Khan for respondent
---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &ABHAY AHUJA, JJ. DATED : 30[th] AUGUST 2021
P.C. :
1Considered the interim application. Ms. Khan for respondent statesthat even in the application there is no explanation for non removal of officeobjections for 360 days which is just short of one year. Ms Khan states if thecourt is still inclined to condone the lapse on the part of applicant, then thecourt should grant cost and the cost can be paid over to the assessee or toany one, which the court may decide to give.
2Mr. Pinto says the objection raised was Exhibit A to the petition wasnot readable and typed copy should be provided. That is not stated in theapplication but we accept what Mr. Pinto says. Mr. Pinto states that he hadgiven an undertaking to provide typed copies. Since it is an appeal filed bythe revenue, purely by way of indulgence we allow application and restorethe appeal but certainly respondent’s counsel is not unjustified in seekingcost. Subject to applicant paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost to be paid to
the High Court Legal Aid Fund, Account No.60045304283, IFSC- , of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch- Fort, Mumbai 400 032,maintained by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai. RoomNo.105, 1[st] Floor, PWD Building, High Court, Mumbai and details of suchcost to be furnished to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbaiand receipt thereof physically or through Email, i.e., which shall be the proof of such payment/depositshall be obtained. The amount shall be paid within two weeks from today.Typed copies shall also be provided and other objections, if any, shall beremoved within two weeks from today. Both these conditions are conditionprecedent for restoration of the appeal and if these precedents are compliedwith the appeal will stand restored. Otherwise, the appeal will be treated asdismissed without further reference to the court.
3Interim application stands disposed.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, 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.