The Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 v. M/S.anil Impex
High Court
17 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 v. M/S.anil Impex
Date of order
17 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 v. M/S.anil Impex, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.567 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.381 OF 2008
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-14..Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Anil Impex .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant
Mr.Jitendra Singh i/b K.Gopal for the respondent
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
SANTOSH BORA, JJ.
DATED : 17TH APRIL, 2008
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 517 days’ delay caused in filing the
Appeal.
2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the
Notice of Motion. It appears that though the
2
Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval for
filing an Appeal on 11.08.06, the Appeal came to be
filed belatedly on 08.02.08 i.e. after a lapse of
18 months.
3. We are not satisfied with the reasons given
for condonation of delay. The reason given for
delay that of getting the draft memo of Appeal
prepared does not appear to be justifiable. No
sufficient cause is made out for condonation of
delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
4. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of
Motion, Income Tax Appeal (L) No.381 of 2008 also
stands dismissed.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, J.)
(SANTOSH BORA, 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.
EaseValue