Case LawHigh Court › Wp/2233/2005 Of Daulatram Parmanand Nara...

Wp/2233/2005 Of Daulatram Parmanand Narang v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors

High Court 27 Jun 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/2233/2005 Of Daulatram Parmanand Narang v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors
Date of order
27 Jun 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/2233/2005 Of Daulatram Parmanand Narang v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence, the above Petition stands dismissed on the ground of laches.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2233 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2233 OF 2005 Shri Daulatram Paramanand Narang ...Petitioner. V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Ahmednagar & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Narayan Sahu i/b S.K.Srivastav & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 27th June, 2005. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 27th June, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. By this Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 9th August, 2002. The present petition has been opposed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The present petition has been lodged on 30th March, 2005. 2. The only explanation with regard to the delay in filing the above petition is found in para 20 of the petition which reads as under: "(20) That the Petitioner was not keeping good health and was suffering from heart disease and was admitted in hospital on several : 2 : occasions and hence could not approach this Hon’ble Court earlier. There is no deliberate delay in approaching this Hon’ble Court and the Petitioner is thus approaching this Hon’ble Court as early as possible. The Petitioner relies upon the medical treatment papers when produced." 3. On perusal of the above, it clearly indicates that the Petitioner has not given any details, whatsover. The entire submission is totally vague. Petition suffers from gross delay. Hence, the above Petition stands dismissed on the ground of laches. (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, 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