Nma/63/2016 Of Cheryl 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/63/2016 Of Cheryl J. Patel v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
29 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Nma/63/2016 Of Cheryl 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. 62 OF 2016ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1910 OF 2015WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 63 OF 2016IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1911 OF 2015
Cheryl J. Patel
.. Applicant
In the matter between
Cheryl 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 motions upon the respondent and undertakes to file affidavit of service by Monday i.e. on 1[st] February, 2016.
2.These Notices of Motion seek condonation of 175 days delay in
filing the appeals for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 from the common impugned order dated 21[st] January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3.We have perused the affidavits in support of both the notices of motion. We find that the applicant is a senior citizen, whose affairs are looked after by her son one Mr. Punit Patel, who has also filed the affidavit in support of the motion. It is pointed out in the affidavit that 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 on 3[rd ]February, 2015. The affidavit states that 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 explaining the delay in support of the notice of motion.
4.Accordingly, both 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.