Nma/1410/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-26,Mum v. Mr Joseph Bibeau
High Court
22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1410/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-26,Mum v. Mr Joseph Bibeau
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/1410/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-26,Mum v. Mr Joseph Bibeau, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1410 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.708 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1410 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.708 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Mr.Joseph Bibeau ..Respondent.
Mr.P.S.Shahadevan for appellant.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007.
DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 374 days in preferring
the appeal. There is affidavit in support filed by
S.R.Veer. The I.T.A.T. order dated 17/8/2004 was
received 13/12/2004. The last date for pereferring the
appeal was 11/4/2005. There is no explanation
whatsoever for the delay between 13/12/2004 and
7/7/2005.
2. Thereafter, considering para 2 even the
Panel constituted was in January, 2006, the appeal has
been preferred only on 20th April, 2006. There is no
explanation for the said period.
3. Considering the cause shown, in our opinion
the same would not amount to sufficient cause. Motion
is dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELL0, 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.