Case LawHigh Court › Nma/1492/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/1492/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18, Mumbai v. L. C. Patel (Huf)

High Court 22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1492/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18, Mumbai v. L. C. Patel (Huf)
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/1492/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18, Mumbai v. L. C. Patel (Huf), 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 JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.1492 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.785 OF 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1492 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.785 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Shri L.C. Patel (HUF) ..Respondent. Mr.S.M.Shah for appellant. Ms.Aasifa Khan for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007. P.C. :- There is a delay of 457 days in preferring the appeal. There is affidavit in support of the Motion. The order of the I.T.A.T. dated 2/8/2004 was received on 19/10/2004. The file was sent to Ministry of Law on 25/1/2005. The file was returned Ministry of Law on 31/1/2005. The draft appeal memo was received on 2/1/2006. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay between 31/1/2005 to 2/1/2006. Considering the above, in our opinion, the cause shown would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELL0, 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