Nma/1985/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Mumbai v. Bharat S. Shah
High Court
16 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1985/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Mumbai v. Bharat S. Shah
Date of order
16 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/1985/2006 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Mumbai v. Bharat S. Shah, 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1985 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.871 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1985 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.871 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Bharat Shah ..Respondent.
Mr.B.M.Chatterji with P.P.Bhosale appellant.
Mr.S.J.Mehta for respondent.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 16TH OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 360 days in preferring
the appeal. There is affidavit of Mr.D.S.Deshpande in
support. The I.T.A.T. order was received on 18/1/2005. The Chief CIT’s approval was received on 19/4/2005 and the file was sent to the Ministry of Law on 3/5/2005. The draft appeal memo was received on 18/11/2005. The stamp paper was received on 17/1/2006
and the appeal was filed on 12/5/2006. Apart the bare
averments that due to heavy workload the appeal could
not be filed, there is no explanation whatsoever for
the delay between 17/1/2006 to 12/5/2006 In our
opinion, the cause shown would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELL0, 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.