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.)
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.