The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Om Prakash & Co
High Court
30 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Om Prakash & Co
Date of order
30 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Om Prakash & Co, 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.192 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.192 OF 2008
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.192 OF 2008
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.62 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.62 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
Om Prakash & Co. .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.
DATE : 30th April, 2008
DATE : 30th April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking
condonation of 244 days’ delay caused in filing the
Appeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice
of Motion. It appears that though the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval for
filing an Appeal on 9.5.2007 the Appeal came to be filed
belatedly on 9.1.2008 after a lapse of eight months. 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 non-availability
of Court fee stamps & the administrative difficulties
etc. does not appear to be justifiable. No sufficient
cause is made out for condonation of delay. Hence,
Notice of Motion stands dismissed.
2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income
Tax Appeal (L) No.62/2008 also stands dismissed.
(A.V.NIRGUDE, 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.