The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. John Francis Bleharski, Mumbai
High Court
09 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. John Francis Bleharski, Mumbai
Date of order
09 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. John Francis Bleharski, Mumbai, 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.3473 OF 2007ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.3473 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.2021 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... AppellantVs.John Francis Bleharski, Mumbai ... Respondents
Mr. P.P. Kakade for AppellantNone for Respondent
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2008
P.C. :-
1)Heard learned counsel for the appellant.The Motion is filed for condonation of 253 daysdelay in filing the above appeal. Perused theaffidavit filed in support of the Notice ofMotion. The impugned order is dated 31-07-2006.The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax grantedapproval on 4-12-2006 for filing the appeal.However, the appeal was filed on 05-09-2007. Thereasons given for the delay in filing the appeal
is due to admnistrative exigencies and theprocedural formalities. The reasons given aretotally unsatisfactory. No case is made out forcondoning the delay. Notice of Motion isdismissed with no order as to costs.
2)Notice of Motionis disposed ofaccordingly with no order as to costs.
( DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.
EaseValue