Mumbai v. Pankaj N. Mehta
High Court
17 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. Pankaj N. Mehta
Date of order
17 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. Pankaj N. Mehta, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In view of the dismissal of the notice of motion, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1066 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1066 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1066 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 579 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 579 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12
Mumbai. .. Appellant.
vs.
Pankaj N. Mehta. .. Respondent.
Mr. A.S. Rao for Appellant.
Ms. Usha I. Dalal for Respondent.
CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008.
DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C.
. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is
seeking condonation of 1049 days delay caused in filing
the Appeal.
2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. It appears that though the last date for
filing the Appeal was 14.04.2005 and the Commissioner
of Income Tax had granted approval for filing an Appeal
2
on 07.04.2005 the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on
27.02.2008 i.e. after the lapse of 1049 days. The
only reason given is that the delay occurred due to
various administrative steps involved in filing the
above appeal.
3. We are not satisfied with the above reasoning.
No sufficient cause is made out for condonation of
delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the notice of
motion, the appeal also stands dismissed.
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, 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