The Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 v. Shri.aly G.morani
High Court
03 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 v. Shri.aly G.morani
Date of order
03 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 v. Shri.aly G.morani, 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1579
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.530 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.530 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-21 .. Appellant
Vs.
Shri.Aly G.Morani .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.P.BHANGALE, JJ.
DATE : 3rd June, 2008
DATE : 3rd June, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 699 days’ delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. The Appeal is against the ITAT’s order dated
26.8.2005. It appears that though the Chief CIT had
granted approval for filing the Appeal on 28.2.2006 the
Appeal came to be filed belatedly on 22.2.2008. We are
not satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of
delay. The reasons given for delay that of getting the
draft memo of Appeal prepared and the other reasons
beyond the control of the Appellant’s office including
the administrative difficulties etc. does not appear to
be justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out for
condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands
dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income
Tax Appeal (L) No.530/2008 also stands dismissed.
(A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(A.P.BHANGALE, 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.
EaseValue