The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Shri.vinod Bansal
High Court
25 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Shri.vinod Bansal
Date of order
25 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 v. Shri.vinod Bansal, 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.1618 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1618 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1618 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1177 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1177 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-9 .. Appellant
Vs.
Shri.Vinod Bansal .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr.Chetan Kapadia i/by M/s.Nankani & Co.for 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 751 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,
shortage of stamp papers, the administrative
difficulties and other reasons beyond the control of the
Appellant’s office etc.does not appear to be
justifiable. Though the Chief CIT had granted approval
on 7.3.2006 the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on
17.4.2008. 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.1177/2008 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