Case LawHigh Court › Nma/538/2018 Of Pr.commissioner Of Incom...

Nma/538/2018 Of Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-20 v. Mudhit Madanlal Gupta

High Court 07 Dec 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/538/2018 Of Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-20 v. Mudhit Madanlal Gupta
Date of order
07 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Nma/538/2018 Of Pr.commissioner Of Income Tax-20 v. Mudhit Madanlal Gupta, the High Court (2018) 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 538 OF 2018IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1573 OF 2015 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-20.. Applicant In the matter betweenThe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-20.. Appellantv/s. Mudhit Madanlal Gupta .. Respondent Ms. Padma Divakar for the applicant / orig. appellant None for the respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 7[th] DECEMBER, 2018. 1.None appears for the respondent despite service. 2.This motion has been taken out for condoning 804 days delay in taking out the application to set aside the order dated 28[th] January,2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, rejecting thepetition under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side)Rules. 3.The affidavit in support of motion states that office objections remained to be removed and the same was not intentional. It furtherproceeds to state that the applicant was not informed of the order of theProthonotary and Senior Master rejecting the petition and it becomeaware only on 18.05.2018. However, the circumstances which made itto becoming aware of the same are not mentioned. The reasons statedin the affidavit do not inspire any confidence. It appears that theapplication for condonation of delay has been taken out in ritualisticmanner, without any real reasons being shown for delay. 4.Thus, in the above facts, we do not condone the delay. 5.In the above view, the motion is dismissed. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, 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