Case LawHigh Court › Nma/2599/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Nma/2599/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. R.d. Ashar

High Court 29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/2599/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. R.d. Ashar
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Nma/2599/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. M/S. R.d. Ashar, the High Court (2008) 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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2599 of 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1385 of 2006 Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant Vs,. M/s.R.D. Ashar ..Respondent Mr. A.S. Rao with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for Appellant Mr. B.V. Jhaveri for Respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 29TH JANUARY 2008 CORAM: F.I. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 29TH JANUARY 2008 P.C.: . There is a delay of 565 days in preferring the Appeal. There is an affidavit in support of the Motion. The Order of the I.T.A.T. dated 25th June, 2004 was received by the CIT-12 on 14th September, 2004. After other steps, scrutiny report was called for on 9th December, 2004. The file was sent to Panel Counsel on 16th December, 2004. The draft appeal was received on 22nd December, 2005. Thereafter, note for Court Fees stamp was sent in January, 2006. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the delay between 16th December, 2004 and 22nd December, 2005. Considering the cause shown, in our opinion, the same would not amount to sufficient cause. Hence Motion is dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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