The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Jalaludding N. Virji
High Court
29 Oct 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Jalaludding N. Virji
Date of order
29 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Jalaludding N. Virji, the High Court (2007) 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.
(-#-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.849 of 2006
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.199 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income-tax..Appellant
Vs.
Jalaludding N. Virji............Respondent
Mr. B.M. Chaterji withMrs. P.P. Bhosale and Mr.
P.S. Sahadevan forthe Appellant
Mr. P.J. Pardiwala with Ms. Chitra Rao i/b. M.& M.
Legal Ventures for therespondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATED: 29th October, 2007
CORAM: F.I.
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 29th October, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The case of the appellant is that there is
delay of 84 days in filing the Appeal. In the
affidavit in support it is pointed out that the
Appeal is filed against the order dated 22nd June,
2005. The order dated 22nd June, 2005 was passed in
M.A.No.262/M/05 which was an application for
rectification in respect of the order of the
Tribunal dated 25th March, 2003. In so far as the
time taken in M.A. proceedings those are not
proceedings in review. Yet considering that the
appellant was bonafide prosecuting those proceedings
that period could have been excluded. However, the
Appellant still will have to explain the period
between 25th March, 2003 and December, 2004 when
M.A. was taken out. In the affidavit filed in
support of the Motion for condonation of delay no
reason whatsoever has been given by the Appellant.
In other words there is no explanation or cause
shown. Considering the above in our opinion as the
cause shown does not amount to sufficient cause, the
Motion has to be dismissed which is accordingly
dismissed.
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.