Case LawHigh Court › Nma/1987/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of...

Nma/1987/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-28 v. M/S. Gahlot Construction

High Court 16 Mar 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/1987/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-28 v. M/S. Gahlot Construction
Date of order
16 Mar 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/1987/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-28 v. M/S. Gahlot Construction, the High Court (2018) 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

Rane* 1/2 * NMA—1987-2017 (SR.4) Friday, 16.3.2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1987 OF 2017 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO. 15 OF 2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-28 ….Applicant (Orig. Appellant) IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-28 ….Appellant V/s.M/s. Gahlot Construction….Respondent * * * * * Ms. Padma Divakar a/w. Mr. Prabhakar Ranshur, Advocate for applicant-original appellant. CORAM :- M.S. SANKLECHA, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. DATE :-16TH MARCH, 2018. P.C. :- 1. This application seeks condonation of 195 days Rane delay in taking out this Motion to set aside the self-operating order dated 16th February, 2017 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master rejecting the Appeal under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules.2.By the order dated 16th February, 2017 passed by the Prothonotary, the appellant was directed removal of office objections on/or before 16th March, 2017 failing which the Appeal would be rejected. The appellants were present on the said date. The Affidavit-in-support of the impugned notice is most casual. It even does not mention the basic date of when the Assessing Officer came to know of the order dated 16th February, 2017. In the above view, we find that no 3.In the above view, we find that no sufficient cause is made out on the part of the Revenue so as to condone the delay. 4.Accordingly, the Motion is dismissed. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, 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