In Nma/1711/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18, Mumbai v. Shri Govindji S. Shah, 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.1711 of 2008inINCOME TAX APPEAL(L) NO.1216 of 2008ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax18.. Appellant
Shri Govindji S.ShahRespondent
Mr.R.G.Bhat for AppellantMr.Ajay R.Singh for Respondent
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Bythis notice of motion, the appellant is seekingcondonation of 977 delay caused in filing theappeal.
2. Perused the affidavit in support of the Noticeof motion. It appears that though the last datefor filing the appeal was 8.8.05 the appeal cameto be filed belatedly on 21.4.08 i.e. almostafter a lapse of more than 3 years. The maindelay seems to have been occured as the draft memoof appeal was received by the office of theappellant on 18.2.05 and since the court feestamps were not readily available the above appealcould not be filed in time. We are not at allsatisfied with the reasons given for condonation
of delay. No sufficient cause is made out forcondonation of delay. Hence, Notice of motionstands dismissed.
3. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion,Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1216 of 2008 also standsdismissed.
{A.V.Nirgude, J)
(Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, 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.