Nma/1334/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax , Thane-I v. Shri Vijay C.chaturvedi
High Court
18 Jul 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1334/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax , Thane-I v. Shri Vijay C.chaturvedi
Date of order
18 Jul 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1334/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax , Thane-I v. Shri Vijay C.chaturvedi, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The appellant apparently had to take advice as to whether an appeal would be maintainable against the order dismissing the Miscellaneous Application or not.
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1334 OF 2012
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO.578 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income – Tax, Thane – IV/s.Vijay C. Chaturvedi
....Appellant
....Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.
Mr.Pankaj Toprani for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 18TH JULY, 2012.
P.C. :-
1.This is an application for condonation of delay of 554 days in filing the appeal.
2.The impugned order is dated 11.6.2010. It was received by the appellant on 28.6.2010. The appeal was filed on 4.4.2012. The appellant has however, made out a case for condonation of delay for the following reasons.
3.The appellant filed Miscellaneous Application No.630/Mum/2010 for correction of the order. The same was dismissed on 21.9.2011. In view therefore, the appeal not ought to
nma1334-12
be dismissed on the ground of delay pertaining to the period during which the Miscellaneous Application was pending. That the Miscellaneous Application may have been misconceived is another matter. Prima-facie, it does not appear to have been filed with any ulterior motive.
4.This therefore, leaves a delay of about two and half months. The appellant apparently had to take advice as to whether an appeal would be maintainable against the order dismissing the Miscellaneous Application or not.
5.The notice of motion is therefore, made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b).
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(S.J. VAZIFDAR, 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.