In The Commissioner Of Income Tax 17, Mumbai v. Shri Devkumar Agarwal, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.In this view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs.
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2130 OF 2009ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2131 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax 17, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Shri Devkumar Agarwal
..Respondent.
Mr.D.K. Kamwal for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009
P.C. :
1.The appeals are barred by limitation. Admittedly, no notice of motion is taken out. There is no prayer for condonation of delay. No sufficient cause is shown. Apart from this, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. V/s.Commissioner of Central Excisereported in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.). we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.In this view of the matter, the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation
with no order as to costs.
(V.C. Daga, 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