Prashant G. Sharma v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax)(Osd-I) And Another
High Court
24 Jul 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Prashant G. Sharma v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax)(Osd-I) And Another
Date of order
24 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Prashant G. Sharma v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax)(Osd-I) And Another, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
upa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 858 OF 2013
ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO.670 OF 2013
Prashant G. Sharma
).. Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax)(OSD-I) and another).. Respondents
Mr.V. Subramanian i/b.Mr.V.S.Hadade for the Appellant.Mr. P.C. Chhotarey for the Respondents.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S. SANKLECHA, J. DATED : 24 JULY 2013
P .C.
This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the assessee for condoning delay of 552 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 9 July 2011 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "C" Bench, Mumbai, certified copy of which was received by the appellant on 15 November 2011. However, the appeal has been filed on 20 May 2013. Hence, there is a delay of 552 days in filing the appeal.
2. The explanation offered for the delay is the change of opinion. Initially, the appellant was advised not to file Income Tax Appeal and it was only in the month of April 2013 that the applicant was advised to file the Appeal for the assessment year 2005-06.
3. It is thus clear, on perusal of the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, that the applicant had taken a conscious decision not to challenge the order of the Tribunal. Hence, as per the settled legal position, the appellant has not shown sufficient cause for condoning gross delay of 552 days in filing the Appeal.
4. We may note that otherwise also the impugned order of the Tribunal is a well reasoned order upholding the order of penalty. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay. Notice of Motion is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
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.