Case LawHigh Court › Nma/1846/2016 Of Prashant Arun Sangai v....

Nma/1846/2016 Of Prashant Arun Sangai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I,(Central)-Nashik

High Court 22 Jul 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1846/2016 Of Prashant Arun Sangai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I,(Central)-Nashik
Date of order
22 Jul 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Nma/1846/2016 Of Prashant Arun Sangai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I,(Central)-Nashik, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In the above view, the order dated 17[th] December, 2015 is set aside.

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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1846 OF 2016 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1027 OF 2015WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1847 OF 2016 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1028 OF 2015 Prashant Arun Sangai .. Applicant In the matter betweenPrashant Arun Sangai .. Appellant v/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,(Central) Nashik .. Respondent Ms. Aswini Surendran i/b Ashok T. Gade for the applicant Mr. Sham Walve for the respondent P.C. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J. DATED : 22[nd] JULY, 2016. 1.Both these Notices of Motion seek quashing of the order dated 17[th] December, 2015 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules rejecting the two appeals for non removal of office objections. 2.There was 8 days delay in the appellant filing both the appeals from the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant took out the Notices of Motion in both the appeals. By 1846-16-nma-c=.doc order dated 18[th] December, 2015 Motions in both the appeals were allowed. However, in the meantime, on 17[th] December, 2015, the impugned order was passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master rejecting the appeals by a conditional order calling upon the appellant to remove the office objections within two weeks. The appellant bonafide believed that since the notices of motion were allowed, there was nothing further to be done. Therefore, in view of the applicants failure, both the appeals stood rejected by the order of the Prothonotary and Senior Master dated 17[th] December, 2015. 3.We find that non-removal of office objections after the disposal of the notices of motion was inadvertent and bonafide. In the above view, the order dated 17[th] December, 2015 is set aside. We are informed that all office objections have now been removed. 4.In the above view, both the Notices of Motion are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 5.Appeals to come up on board in regular course. (A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, 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