Vol.267 Itr Page 488 In The Case Ofabdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Assistant Commissioner Ofincome-Tax And Others
High Court
20 Jun 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Vol.267 Itr Page 488 In The Case Ofabdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Assistant Commissioner Ofincome-Tax And Others
Date of order
20 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Vol.267 Itr Page 488 In The Case Ofabdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Assistant Commissioner Ofincome-Tax And Others, the High Court (2008) dismissed 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 719 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 719 OF 2007
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 719 OF 2007
IN
IN
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 2403 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 2403 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central II, Mumbai. ...Appellant
V/s.
Yashraj Chopra ...Respondent
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND
V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : JUNE 20, 2008
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. This is an application for condonation of 563
days delay in filing the present appeal which is
directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 8th
November, 2004. In the application and the affidavit
annexed to the Notice of Motion, no explanation of whatsoever nature has been tendered. What is stated is that appeal was to be filed on 3rd May, 2006 and it has
been filed on 17th November, 2006 and the delay should
be condoned. Even the dates given in the affidavit do
not state as to what steps were taken and why the delay
should be condoned. The right as accrued to the
assessee which cannot be taken away in a mechanical
- 2 -
manner and it is obligatory on the part of the appellant
to show that there is sufficient cause for condoning
such an inordinate delay which is unexplained. We may
also notice here that this case has been called out
three times in the morning and nobody was present on
behalf of the applicant. We see no reason to condone
the delay as no sufficient cause has been shown.
2. The application is dismissed and the appeal does
not survive for consideration. It is, accordingly,
disposed of.
3. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent has also brought to our notice that the
question of law framed in the present appeal is squarely
covered on fact and law by a Division Bench Judgment of
this Court under Vol.267 ITR Page 488
Vol.267 ITR Page 488 in the case ofAbdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Assistant Commissioner ofIncome-Tax and others.
Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Assistant Commissioner of
Income-Tax and others.
CHIEF JUSTICE
CHIEF JUSTICE
- 3 -
V.M. KANADE, J.
V.M. KANADE, J.
V.M. KANADE, 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.