Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr. Ni...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr. Nicholas Richard

High Court 09 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr. Nicholas Richard
Date of order
09 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mr. Nicholas Richard, 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.3475 OF 2007ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO.3475 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.2024 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... AppellantVs. Mr. Nicholas Richard... Respondent Mr. P.P. Kakade with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan forAppellant.Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent. P.C. :- 1)Heard learned counsel for the appellantand the learned counsel for the respondent. TheMotion is filed for condonation of 292 days delayin filing the above appeal. Perused the affidavitfiled in support of the Notice of Motion. Theimpugned order is dated 14-06-2006. The ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax granted approval on3-11-2006 for filing the appeal. However, theappeal was filed on 05-09-2007. The reasons given for the delay in filing the appeal is due toadmnistrative exigencies and the proceduralformalities. The reasons given are totallyunsatisfactory. No case is made out for condoningthe delay. Notice of Motion is dismissed with noorder as to costs. 2)Notice of Motionis disposed ofaccordingly with no order as to costs. ( DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan