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.)
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.