Nma/1712/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18, Mumbai v. M/S K.k. Johari (Huf)
High Court
11 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1712/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18, Mumbai v. M/S K.k. Johari (Huf)
Date of order
11 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nma/1712/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -18, Mumbai v. M/S K.k. Johari (Huf), 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.1712 of 2008inINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1215 of 2008inINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax18.. Appellant
M/s K.K. Johari (HUF).. Respondent
Mr.R.G.Bhatt for AppellantNone for Respondent
P.C.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Bythis notice of motion, the appellant is seekingcondonation of 223 delay caused in filing theappeal.
2. Perused the affidavit in support of the Noticeof motion. The appeal is against I.T.A.T. order20.4.07. The affidavit does not give anyparticulars whatsoever as to when the ChiefCommissioner of Income tax granted approval andwhen the papers were sent to the Advocate fordrafting the appeal and when the papers werereceived after the draft was ready and when thedepartment obtained the court fee stamps. Excepta general statement is made that the departmenthas been following to expedite filing as early as
possible due to the facts mentioned above, delayhas taken place and the appellant regrets the sameprays for leniency. We are not at all satisfiedwith the reasons given for condonation of delay.No sufficient cause is made out for condonation ofdelay. Hence, Notice of motion stands dismissed.
3. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion,Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1215 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.