Nma/1552/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Ii v. Suresh G. Makhija
High Court
22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1552/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Ii v. Suresh G. Makhija
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1552/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Ii v. Suresh G. Makhija, 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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1552 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.663 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1552 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.663 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Mr.Suresh G.Makhija ..Respondent.
Mr.S.M.Shah 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 1012 days in preferring
the appeal. There is affidavit in support of the
Motion. The order of the I.T.A.T. dated 25/2/2003 was
received by the CIT, Central II, Mumbai on 12/3/2003.
The due date of filing the appeal was 10/7/2003. The
judicial folder was sent to Ministry of Law on
8/7/2003. The judicial folder was finally sent back on
20/12/2005. The draft appeal memo was received on
8/2/06. There is no explanation whatsoever for the
delay between 8/7/2003 and 20/12/2005. Considering the
cause shown, in our opinion, the same would not amount
to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.