In Itxa/5183/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 18 Mumbai v. Dilip G. Mohatta, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2459 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income-tax.
... Appellant.
V/s.
Shri Dillip G. Mohatta.
... Respondent.
A.S.Shivsharan for the appellant.
P.C. :
CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.thDATED : 7 November 2009.
Office objections are overruled. Office to register the appeal. Appeal is taken up for hearing at the request of learned counsel for the appellant.
2.Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused appeal and the impugned order.
3.Having gone through the impugned order, simply because the assessee was unable to make payment within a period of three years that does not mean that he is debarred from making payment. The Tribunal has rightly deleted the addition. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(V.C.DAGA 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