Mumbai v. Shri Ajay P. Bafna
High Court
04 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai v. Shri Ajay P. Bafna
Date of order
04 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai v. Shri Ajay P. Bafna, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.512 of 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.278 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income-tax
Mumbai ..Appellant
Vs.
Shri Ajay P. Bafna...................Respondent
Mr. B.M. Chatterjee with Mrs. P.P. Bhosale for the
appellant.
Ms. Aasifa Khan, for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATED: 4TH SEPTEMEBR, 2007
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 4TH SEPTEMEBR, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. There is a delay of 251 days in filing the
Appeal. There is an affidavit in support of the
Motion. It appears that after the order was
received by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 18th
May, 2004 the matter was forwarded to the Law
Ministry for drafting the Appeal on 2nd June, 2004.
The draft appeal was collected on 7th June, 2006.
Between that period and 17th January, 2005 funds
were not available for purchasing stamp papers. In
these circumstances it is pointed out that the cause
shown amounts to sufficient cause and hence delay
ought to be condoned.
2. Reply has been filed on behalf of the
respondents opposing the condonation of delay
(-2-)
contending that the cause shown would not amount to
sufficient cause.
3. Considering the fact that the delay was
occasioned in the Law Department and
non-availability of money to buy stamp papers in our
opinion the cause shown amounts to sufficient cause.
Hence delay condoned. Motion made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a). Office to register the
Appeal.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, 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.