Nma/2205/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. Peddington Chemical (I) Ltd
High Court
22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2205/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. Peddington Chemical (I) Ltd
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/2205/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. Peddington Chemical (I) Ltd, 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 JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2205 OF 2006IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2205 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1066 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1066 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Peddington Chemical Industries ..Respondent.
Mr.A.S.Rao with P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 1389 days in preferring
the appeal. There is affidavit in support of the
Motion. The order of the I.T.A.T. dated 5/4/2002 was
received by the CIT-12, Mumbau on 30/9/2004. After the
scrutiny report received by the Judicial CIT on
6/12/2004, the file was sent to the Ministry of Law on
10/12/2004. The draft appeal memo was received on
7/10/2005. The appeal was filed on 26/6/2006. There
is no explanation whatsoever for the delay between
10/12/2004 and 7/10/2005 and thereafter. Considering
the cause shown, in our opinion, the same would not
amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(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.