Nma/61/2016 Of Punit J. Patel v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
29 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nma/61/2016 Of Punit J. Patel v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
29 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Nma/61/2016 Of Punit J. Patel v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2016) allowed 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. 61 OF 2016IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1913 OF 2015
Punit J. Patel
.. Applicant
In the matter between
Punit J. Patel .. Appellant
v/s.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income-TaxCentral Circle 13, Mumbai .. Respondent
Mr. Nishit Gandhi for the applicant None for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J.
DATED : 29[th] JANUARY, 2016.
P.C.
1.Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the applicant states that he has served the motion upon the respondent and undertakes to file affidavit of service by Monday i.e. on 1[st] February, 2016.
2.This Notice of Motion seek condonation of 175 days delay in filing the appeal from the impugned order dated 21[st] January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).
3.We have perused the affidavit in support of the notice of motion. We find that the applicant was unable to file his appeal in time as after
the conclusion of the hearing by the Tribunal on 17[th] December 2014, he secured employment abroad on Cruise Ship and was not in India when the impugned order of the Tribunal received. He came back to India only on 15[th] November, 2015 and has filed the accompanying appeal on 2[nd] December, 2015. We are satisfied with the reasons set out in support of the notice of motion for the delay in filing the accompanying appeal.
4.Accordingly, Notices of Motion are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.