Itxa/280/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Central Iii,Mum v. M/S Nitco Tiles Ltd
High Court
07 Aug 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/280/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Central Iii,Mum v. M/S Nitco Tiles Ltd
Date of order
07 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/280/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Central Iii,Mum v. M/S Nitco Tiles Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: In this situation, therefore, we are not able to find out whether there was any error in the order made by the Appellate Commissioner relating to the year 1997-98.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.280 OF 2008
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.284 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s
appearances, Court’s orders
order or directions
-----------------------------------------------------
¦ Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr.B.M.
¦ Chatterjee for the Appellant.
¦ Ms.Beena Pillai i/b Nirag Pumania
¦ for the Respondent.
¦
¦
¦ CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
¦ J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
¦ DATED:7TH AUGUST, 2008
P.C.:
Both appeals relate to the same
assessee, but to different years.
The real question that arises for
consideration in these appeals
appears to have been decided by the
Appellate Commissioner while hearing
Appeal relating to the assessment
year 1997-98. It is common ground
that the finding recorded on the
- 2 -
question which is raised in these
appeals by the Appellate
Commissioner in 1997-98 was not
challenged in the appeal filed by
the Department before the tribunal.
The tribunal, therefore, in this
situation has chosen to follow the
order passed by the Appellate
Commissioner during the year 1997-98
on this question. Because the
learned Counsel appearing for the
Appellant submitted that the Appeal
against the order passed on this
point during the year 1997-98 might
have not been filed, still they can
file appeal during the subsequent
year raising same point. Therefore,
we wanted to find out what were the
reasons given by the Appellate
Commissioner in his order in the
appeal relating to the year 1997-98.
A copy of that order has also not
been produced on record. In this
situation, therefore, we are not
able to find out whether there was
any error in the order made by the
Appellate Commissioner relating to
the year 1997-98.
Taking overall view of the matter,
- 3 -
therefore, in our opinion, it will
not be in the interest of justice to
entertain these Appeals. They are
rejected.
(D.K.DESHMUKH, 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.