Case Law › High Court › The Cit v. M/S.kings Diamonds

The Cit v. M/S.kings Diamonds

High Court 25 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

25 Feb 2008

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit v. M/S.kings Diamonds, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: As the Motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4541 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2626 OF 2006 The CIT ..Appellant Versus M/s.Kings Diamonds ..Respondent ---- Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 25.02.2008 PC 1. This is a Motion for condoning 655 days delay in filing of the main appeal. A perusal of the affidavit-in-support indicates that the Chief CIT granted approval for filing the appeal on 17.02.2005 and thereafter the file was sent to the ministry of law for drafting on 25.2.2005. It appears from the record that the appeal ultimately came to be lodged on 11.12.2006. The delay caused between the period 25.2.2005 & 11.12.2006 has not been explained. In our view, therefore, the cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause. Hence, Motion stands dismissed. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2626 OF 2006 . As the Motion for condoning delay is dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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.