Nms/804/1996 Of The Comm. Of Income Tax v. Vijaypat Singhania
High Court
01 Aug 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Nms/804/1996 Of The Comm. Of Income Tax v. Vijaypat Singhania
Date of order
01 Aug 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nms/804/1996 Of The Comm. Of Income Tax v. Vijaypat Singhania, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
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. 804 OF 1996ININCOME TAX APPLICATION (L) NO. 173 OF 1996
The Commissioner of Income-Tax ... PetitionerBombay City-XIII, Bombay.
Shri Vijaypath Singhania... Respondents
Mr. A.S. Rao for the petitioner.Mrs. V.B. Patel for the respondents.
P.C.
.Heard Mr. Rao in support of this Motion.Mrs. Vasanti Patel appears for the respondents. TheMotion seeks the condonation of delay of 601 days infiling the application. The ground given for thecondonation that the delay has occurred on account ofacute manpower constraints. It is not possible toaccept this explanation as a tangible explanation,particularly when the delay was of 601 days. Thatapart, the demand raised in this matter is concerningthe penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. There has beencircular issued by the C.B.D.T., not to prosecute thematters involving amount less than Rs. 2 lacs, unless
there is any serious question of law involved. Thequestion of law sought to be raised in the presentmatter is regarding the quantum of penalty. Thiscannot be a question of law. The Notice of Motion forthe condonation is rejected.The Income TaxApplication will consequently stand disposed of.
[H.L. GOKHALE, J.]
[V.R. KINGAONKAR, 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.