The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Warsila Diesel Ltd
High Court
31 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Warsila Diesel Ltd
Date of order
31 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Warsila Diesel Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1148 OF 2008
ALONG WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 992 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Warsila Diesel Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the
Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: MARCH 31, 2009
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 31, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. There is delay of 430 days in preferring the
appeal. As per affidavit filed by Sujit Kumar
showing the cause for condoning delay, in para 3 it
is set out that the draft appeal was received on or
around 5.4.2007. The appeal was filed on 15.4.2008.
The cause shown in Para 4 does not disclose
sufficient cause for the unexplained delay between
the said period.
. We have been condoning the delays considering
also many a times the tax effect. There is serious
objection raised by the counsel for the assessees
that this is causing unjust hardship to the
assessees who will have to await the outcome of the
proceedings for several long years even in cases
(-2-)
where hardly any cause is shown. In our opinion,
though tax incidence may not be relevant for the
purpose of showing causes, we had been considering
tax effect subject to some cause being shown. In
the instant case, there is absolutely no whisper of
explanation for the delay between 5.4.2006 and
15.4.2008. Therefore, as the cause shown does not
amount to sufficient cause. Hence, motion
dismissed. Consequently appeal dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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.