Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/280/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-...

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.)
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