Mumbai v. M/S. Riyaz Trading Pvt.ltd. Mumbai
High Court
10 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. M/S. Riyaz Trading Pvt.ltd. Mumbai
Date of order
10 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. M/S. Riyaz Trading Pvt.ltd. Mumbai, the High Court (2008) 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
VPH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION No. 3138 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No.2340 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income-Tax-3 Appellant
Mumbai
Vs
M/s. Riyaz Trading Pvt.Ltd. Mumbai ... Respondent
Mr. P. S. Sahadevan, for the appellant.
Mr. Raj Darak, for the respondent.
CORAM: Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, &
V. C. DAGA, JJ.
DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008.
P.C.:
----
. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent. By this
Notice of Motion, the appellant is seeking condonation
of the delay of 731 days in filing the above Appeal.
The above Appeal is filed against the judgment and
order of ITAT dated 7th April, 2005. Perused the
Notice of Motion and the affidavit in support thereof.
It appears that the CIT granted aproval for filing the
appeal on 28th September 2005. However, it appears
that the appeal came to be lodged on 5th October 2007
i.e. after a lapse of more than two years. The
- 2 -
reasons given in the affidavit, for the delay in
filing the Appeal are, the getting the draft of memo
of appeal prepapred and getting the Court-fee stamps.
We are not at all satisfied with the reasons for the
delay in filing the Appeal. No case is made out for
condoning the delay. In the result, Notice of Motion
is dismissed.
[ V. C. DAGA, J.] [ Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.