Case LawHigh Court › Nma/2081/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/2081/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai v. Legal Heir Of Late Mr. Dipchand Shah

High Court 22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2081/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai v. Legal Heir Of Late Mr. Dipchand Shah
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Nma/2081/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai v. Legal Heir Of Late Mr. Dipchand 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2081 OF 2006IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.779 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2081 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.779 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Late Deepchand M. Shah ..Respondent. Mr.R.Ashokan for appellant. Mr.S.R.Yadav with Y.R.Dube for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- There is a delay of 381 days in preferring the appeal. There is affidavit in support of the Motion. The order of the I.T.A.T. dated 4/11/2004 was received by the CIT-19, Mumbai on 13/12/2004. The Chief CIT granted approval on 6/4/2005. The last date of filing the appeal was 11/4/2005. The file was sent to the Ministry of Law on 8/4/2005. The draft appeal memo was received on 11/7/2005. It is set out that the application was made for stamp paper on 12/7/2005 and stamp papers were received on 2/12/2005. Once again the file was sent to another counsel for redrafting on 13/1/2006. The file was received back on 20/2/2006 and the appeal was filed on 27/4/2006. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay after 2/12/2005. Considering the cause shown, in our opinion, the same would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELL0, 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