In Piyush B. Virani v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Special Range 49, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Decision: 2.Appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 620 OF 2007
Piyush B. Virani. VersusThe Dy. Commissioner of Income TaxSpecial Range 49.
...........Appellant. ..........Respondent.
Mr. Sameer Dalal for the Appellant. Mr. P. S. Sahadevan for the Respondent.
P.C.:
CORAM :BILAL NAZKIandA. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ.DATED :24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.
In this appeal the question framed is “Whether the Tribunal was rightin not condoning the delay of 825 days”. We do not see that this is asubstantial question of law. Even then we have perused the record.Admittedly there is a delay of 825 days and the delay is sought to beexplained on extraneous ground that earlier the appellant was undermisbelief and later on the lawyer had advised to file appeal.
2.Appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
Sd/-
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
Sd/-
(A. A. KUMBHAKONI, 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.