Case LawHigh Court › Prabhat Kumar Limaye v. Union Of India T...

Prabhat Kumar Limaye v. Union Of India Through Principal Commissioner, Income Tax-2, Indore

High Court 04 Sep 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · mphc_db_ind
Parties
Prabhat Kumar Limaye v. Union Of India Through Principal Commissioner, Income Tax-2, Indore
Date of order
04 Sep 2018
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Prabhat Kumar Limaye v. Union Of India Through Principal Commissioner, Income Tax-2, Indore, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.

Decision: 2.No cogent and sufficient explanation has been given by the petitioner regarding delay of more than two years in filing the present writ petition, and therefore, in view of paragraph No.4 of reply, which is supported by the affidavit of the Officer-in-Charge of the case, we dismiss Writ Petition No...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Pithawe RC 1 -ANNEXUREC High Court of Madhya Pradesh, JabalpurBench at Indore, IndoreCONTINUATION ORDER SHEET Writ Petition No.13900/2018 (Prabhat Kumar Limaye s/o Wamanrao Limaye VersusUnion of India throughPrincipal Commissioner,Income Tax-2, Indore) Indore, Dated 04.09.2018Shri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent / Revenue. Heard on the question of admission. O R D E R By this writ petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioner is challenging order dated 07.04.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Indore, whereby application under Section 119 (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing return of income, claiming refund of Rs.42,356/- for Assessment Year 2001-02 has been rejected. 2.No cogent and sufficient explanation has been given by the petitioner regarding delay of more than two years in filing the present writ petition, and therefore, in view of paragraph No.4 of reply, which is supported by the affidavit of the Officer-in-Charge of the case, we dismiss Writ Petition No.13900/2018 on the ground of delay and latches. (P.K. Jaiswal) (Vivek Rusia) Judge Judge
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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