Case LawHigh Court › Nma/2596/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/2596/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. R.d. Ashar

High Court 22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2596/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. R.d. Ashar
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Nma/2596/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. R.d. Ashar, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.

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.2596 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2596 OF 2006 IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1064 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.1064 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.R.D.Ashar ..Respondent. Mr.A.S.Rao with P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- There is a delay of 530 days in preferring the appeal. There is affidavit in support of the Motion. The order of the I.T.A.T. dated 25/6/2004 was received by the CIT-12 on 14/9/2004. After other steps, scrutiny report was called for on 9/12/2004. The file was sent to Panel Counsel on 16/12/2004. The draft appeal was received on 22/12/2005. Thereafter, note for Court fees stamp was sent in January, 2006. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the delay between 16/12/2004 and 22/12/2005. Considering the cause shown, in our opinion, the same would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
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