Case LawHigh Court › Nma/101/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Nma/101/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Mumbai v. Lalit Sheth

High Court 26 Sep 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/101/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Mumbai v. Lalit Sheth
Date of order
26 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/101/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, Mumbai v. Lalit Sheth, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NOTICE OF MOTION NO.101 OF 2006IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.101 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.101 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1571 OF 2005 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1571 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Lalit Sheth ..Respondent. Mr.Ashokan for appellant. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. P.C. :- . The learned counsel on the last occasion had had taken time to file better affidavit. The learned counsel states that considering the record, it is not possible to file a better affidavit. 2. The order of the I.T.A.T. was received on 13/3/2004. The file was sent to the Ministry of Law immediately after 22/6/2004. There is no date when the draft appeal memo was received. The appeal was filed on 18/11/2005. There is no explanation for the delay whatsoever between 22/6/2004 to 18/11/2005. Considering the above, the cause shown would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
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