Nma/1882/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-19 v. Shri Pashar L. Thakkar
High Court
22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1882/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-19 v. Shri Pashar L. Thakkar
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1882/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-19 v. Shri Pashar L. Thakkar, 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.1882 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.925 OF 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1882 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.925 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income-Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Sr.Prashar L. Thakkar ..Respondent.
Mr.R.Ashokan for appellant.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
. There is a delay of 410 days in filing the
appeal. There is affidavit in support of the motion.
The order of the I.T.A.T. was received on 13/12/2004.
After completing the other formalities, the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax granted approval for filing
the appeal on 21/3/2005. The last date for filing the
appeal was 11/4/2005. The file was sent to Mr.Suresh
Kumar, Advocate for drafting the appeal. The same was
drafted and sent to senior counsel, Ministry of Law for
approval. The approval was obtained. After that C.I.T., Mumbai provided the court fees stamp on 2/10/2005. In spite of that once again the process of
- = : 2 : = -
drafting the appeal was restarted after new panel was
appointed. The redrafted appeal was received on
3/5/2006 and the appeal was filed on 26/5/2006. We
fail to understand as to how after the appeal was
drafted and Court fees stamp received on 22/2/2005
there was meed for another round for the purpose of
preferring the appeal. The explanation offered, in our
opinion would not amount to sufficient cause
considering that the appeal has been drafted and vetted
by senior counsel and stamp papers were already
obtained. Considering the above, the cause shown would
not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is
dismissed.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(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.