TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court denies appeal due to 1662-day delay in filing. Importance of genuine reasons emphasized.</h1> <h3>Anil Kumar Nehru Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16 (2), Mumbai</h3> Anil Kumar Nehru Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16 (2), Mumbai - TMI Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal based on belief of pending appeals benefiting subsequent years.In this judgment by the Bombay High Court, the applicant sought condonation of a 1662-day delay in filing an appeal from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to Assessment Year 2004-05. The applicant's main contention was that due to pending appeals on similar issues for earlier years before the Court, they believed any relief granted in those appeals would also apply to the subject assessment year, leading to the delay in filing the appeal for the current year. The affidavit submitted in support of the delay claimed that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue as the issue was already under consideration in other pending appeals. However, the Court found the reasons in the affidavit lacking credibility. The Court highlighted that the applicant had legal representation throughout the process, indicating that professional advice was available. The Court concluded that the reasons provided were not genuine and dismissed the notice of motion for condonation of delay.The Court scrutinized the applicant's claim that the belief in pending appeals benefiting subsequent years justified the delay in filing the appeal for the current assessment year. The Court pointed out inconsistencies in the applicant's reasoning, emphasizing that if the applicant genuinely believed in the benefit of pending appeals for subsequent years, there would have been no need to file an appeal for a different year. Additionally, the Court noted that the applicant had access to professional advice throughout the proceedings, making the claimed belief less plausible. Ultimately, the Court found the reasons presented for the delay not credible and refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal.The judgment underscores the importance of genuine reasons for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings. Despite the applicant's argument regarding pending appeals benefiting subsequent years, the Court found the explanation lacking credibility. The Court's decision was based on the inconsistency in the applicant's actions, the availability of professional advice, and the overall lack of genuine reasons to justify the delay. This case serves as a reminder that courts carefully evaluate the justifications provided for delays in legal matters and emphasize the need for sincerity and credibility in such claims to seek relief.
TaxTMI 