In Nma/4880/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 2, Mumbai v. Shri Pratap Bhogilal, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4880 OF 2007 IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4880 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1897 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1897 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Shri Pratap Bhogilal ..Respondent.
Mr.R.Ashokan for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 11TH APRIL, 2008.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent. Perused the affidavit filed
in support of the Notice of Motion. The Motion is
filed for condonation of 198 days delay in filing the
above appeal. Sufficient cause is shown for condoning
the delay. There is no case of inaction, negligence or
want of bonafide on the part of the appellant. Notice
of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(a). Appeal be numbered.
2. Appeal be placed for hearing after 3 weeks.
3. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly
with no order as to costs.
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.