In Nma/3145/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 Mumbai v. Nandkishore Sawhney Mumbai, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: As the motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed.
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3145 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1693 OF 2006
Commissioner of Income-tax-12 ..Appellant
V/s.
Mr.Nandkishore Sawhney ..Respondent
----
Mr.S.M.Shah with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello &
R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 11.02.2008
PC
1. This is a Motion for condoning 504 days delay in
filing of the main appeal. On perusal of the
affidavit in support we find that the order of the
Income-tax appellate Tribunal was passed on
25.10.2004. The case was sent to the concerned
assessing officer only on 20.6.2006. It is not
mentioned as to when copy of the income tax appeal
was actually received. The delay between the period
25.10.2004 and 20.6.2006 is not properly dealt with
or explained. The cause shown does not amount to
sufficient cause. Hence, Notice of Motion
dismissed.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1785 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1785 OF 2006
. As the motion for condoning delay is dismissed,
appeal also stands dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.