Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Zarina...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Zarina R. Mitha

High Court 19 Dec 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Zarina R. Mitha
Date of order
19 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Zarina R. Mitha, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1942 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 837 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus Zarina R. Mitha ... Respondent Mr. R.G. Bhat with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2007 R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2007 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both parties. 2. This Notice of Motion has been filed for condonation of 102 days delay in filing the main appeal. On perusal of the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, we find that the delay has been sought to be explained. It is contended before us that in December, 2005, the processing of judicial mattes was shifted from the Law Ministry to the Income Tax Department and this has resulted in several administrative difficulties. In certain cases all the papers have not been received. The panel counsel were also involved in dealing with ((-2-)) older cases received from the Law Ministry. Taking into account all these facts, we propose to accept the cause shown for condonation of delay subject to levy of costs. Notice of Motion is therefore, allowed and the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- which is to be paid directly to the respondents within a period of six weeks from today. It is made clear that the department will be at liberty to recover the costs from the officer responsible for causing the delay. 3. It is also made clear that if the respondent has any grievance relating to non effecting of service of this Notice of Motion, he is at liberty to apply for recall of this order. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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