Case Law › High Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. Mr.r...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. Mr.rashid S.oomer

High Court 22 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

22 Sep 2008

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 v. Mr.rashid S.oomer, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Decision: In view thereof we are constrained to dismiss the above appeal. -2- (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)

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

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Income Tax Appeal No. 876 of 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-5 ..Appellant vs. Mr.Rashid S.Oomer ..Respondent Mr.R.Asokan for appellant. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 22nd September,2008 CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 22nd September,2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Asokan, learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. In the above matter Mr.Asokan took time on 20th August, 2008 to serve the respondent. Accordingly, we adjourned it to 4th September, 2008. Again when the matter appeared on 4th September, 2008, Mr.Asokan again sought time to serve the respondent. We again granted further time to serve the respondent till 22nd September, 2008. Today, when the matter appeared Mr.Asokan candidly states that from 20th August, 2008 till today the appellant/revenue has taken no steps to serve the respondents. In view thereof we are constrained to dismiss the above appeal. -2- (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN 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.