The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Shri.mukesh Amritlal Motasha
High Court
25 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Shri.mukesh Amritlal Motasha
Date of order
25 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Shri.mukesh Amritlal Motasha, 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.1496 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1496 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1496 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.805 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.805 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-9 .. Appellant
Vs.
Shri.Mukesh Amritlal Motasha .. Respondent
Mr.J.S.Saluja for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 25th September, 2008
DATE : 25th September, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 531 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. The reasons given for delay
that of getting the draft memo of Appeal prepared and
that of the administrative difficulties and other
procedural requirements etc. does not appear to be
justifiable. The affidavit in support is without any
explanation and is totally vague. No sufficient cause
is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the Notice
of Motion stands dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income
Tax Appeal (L) No.805/2008 also stands dismissed.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, 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