Nand Impex v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
10 Nov 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nand Impex v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
10 Nov 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nand Impex v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Decision: The appeal is rejected even on second count.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1851 OF 2009
Nand Impex Vs.
The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant
..Respondent
Ms.Sneha Phane with N.N.Mayekar with Sonam R.Bohra i/b. Little & Co. for appellant.Mr.D.K.Kamwal for respondent.
P.C.
1.Heard.
Perused appeal.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 10[th] NOVEMBER,2009
DATE :
2.The present appeal is directed against the order dated 27[th] November, 2007 and another order passed in Miscellaneous Application on 21[st] July, 2008. The appeal was obviously barred by limitation against both the orders. However, Notice of Motion taken is out seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 21[st] July, 2008. That is how the prayer was made for condonation of delay. Whereas, no prayer is made seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 27[th] November, 2007. Consequently, there was no condonation of delay so far as filing of the appeal against the order dated 27[th ]November, 2007 is concerned.
3.In the above view of the matter, the appeal is barred by limitation. Hence, the same is rejected. This leaves the appeal directed against the subsequent order based on miscellaneous application against which the appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is rejected even on second count. With no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,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