Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.s...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.salil S.parekh

High Court 15 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.salil S.parekh
Date of order
15 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri.salil S.parekh, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In view of dismissal of both the Notices of Motion, the respective Income Tax Appeals also stand dismissed.

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.1177/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.333/2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1177/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.333/2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1180/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.334/2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1180/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.334/2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. Shri.Salil S.Parekh .. Respondent Mr.P.P.Kakade the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 15th April, 2008 DATE : 15th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By these Notices of Motion Nos.1177/2006 & 1180/2006 the Appellant is seeking condonation of 409 days’ & 332 days’ delay caused in filing the respective Appeals. Perused the affidavits-in-support of the Notices of Motion. It appears that the Chief CIT had granted approval for filing the respective Appeals on 31.03.2006 & 4.4.2006, however the Appeals came to be filed belatedly on 22.2.2007. 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 the administrative exigencies & procedural formalities etc. does not appear to be justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, both the Notices of Motion stand dismissed. 2. In view of dismissal of both the Notices of Motion, the respective Income Tax Appeals also stand dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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