The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. Late Smt.saraswati U.shetty
High Court
02 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. Late Smt.saraswati U.shetty
Date of order
02 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 v. Late Smt.saraswati U.shetty, 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3549 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3549 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3549 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2133 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2133 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-17 .. Appellant
Vs.
Late Smt.Saraswati U.Shetty .. Respondent
Mr.R.Ashokan with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr.Paras Savla for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2nd April, 2008
DATE : 2nd April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 570 days’ delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. We are not satisfied with the reasons given
for condonation of delay. No sufficient cause is made
out for condonation of delay. As stated in the
affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion the draft
memo of Appeal was ready on 5.2.2006 however, the Appeal
came to be filed on 13.9.2007. The reason that the
Court fees stams were not readily available and
therefore Appeal could not be filed in time, does not
appear to be justifiable. There is absolutely no
explanation for the aforesaid delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income
Tax Appeal (L) No.2133/2007 also stands dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.