Nma/431/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-21,Mum v. Shrid Radheshyam Podar
High Court
01 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/431/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-21,Mum v. Shrid Radheshyam Podar
Date of order
01 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Nma/431/2006 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-21,Mum v. Shrid Radheshyam Podar, 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.431 OF 2006ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.203 OF 2006
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.431 OF 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.203 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Radheshyam Poddar ..Respondent.
Mr.R.K.Sharma with P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 1ST OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
There is a delay of 251 days in preferring
the appeal. There is affidavit of Mr.P.M.
Girijavallabhan in support of the Motion. We have perused the said affidavit. The order of the I.T.A.T. is dated 13/12/2004. The appeal is filed on 8/2/2006.
There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay except
saying that it was beyond the control of the
department. Considering the cause shown, in our
opinion, it would not amount to sufficient cause.
Hence Motion is dismissed.
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.