Nma/1409/2006 Of The Commissione Rof Income-Tax-26,Mum v. Mr Chales A.h.alexander
High Court
11 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1409/2006 Of The Commissione Rof Income-Tax-26,Mum v. Mr Chales A.h.alexander
Date of order
11 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/1409/2006 Of The Commissione Rof Income-Tax-26,Mum v. Mr Chales A.h.alexander, the High Court (2008) 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1409 OF 2006IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1409 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.707 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.707 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Shri Charles A.H. Alexander ..Respondent.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 11TH APRIL, 2008.
DATED : 11TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent, though served. The Motion is
filed for condonation of 461 days delay in filing the
above appeal. Perused the affidavit filed in support
of the Notice of Motion. The order of I.T.A.T. is
dated 25/2/2004. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
granted approval on 11/1/2005 for filing the appeal.
However, the appeal was filed on 20/04/2006 i.e. after
a lapse of 1 year and 3 months. The reasons given for
the delay in filing the appeal is that there was delay
in drafting the appeal memo and it was beyond the
control of the appellant’s office. The reasons given
are totally unsatisfactory. No case is made out for
condoning the delay. Notice of Motion is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
2. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly
with no order as to costs.
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.