Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai City 11, Mumbai v. Mr. Jatin Rajg...

Mumbai City 11, Mumbai v. Mr. Jatin Rajguru

High Court 11 Dec 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City 11, Mumbai v. Mr. Jatin Rajguru
Date of order
11 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mumbai City 11, Mumbai v. Mr. Jatin Rajguru, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No.4487 of 2007 in ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No.4487 of 2007 in Income Tax Appeal No.2479 of 2007. Income Tax Appeal No.2479 of 2007. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City 11, Mumbai ..Appellant versus Mr. Jatin Rajguru ..Respondent. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite, JJ. R.S.Mohite, JJ. Dated : 11th Dec., 2007 Dated : 11th Dec., 2007 Dated : 11th Dec., 2007 P.C. . There is delay of 1583 days. Order was received on 18.2.2003. The Commissioner of Income Tax grant approval to file appeal on 14/7/2003. The appeal is filed on 19.10.2007. There is no explanation for the delay, subsequent to approval being granted for filing of the appeal. In our opinion, the cause shown will not amount to sufficient cause. Even though the tax effect is substantial, in our opinion this would not be the fit case in absence of sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1583 days. Hence motion is dismissed. (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (F.I.Rebello, J.) (R.S.Mohite, J.) (R.S.Mohite, J.) -2-
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