Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.tr...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.trust House

High Court 19 Jun 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.trust House
Date of order
19 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.trust House, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier order similar to one in the present impugned order was confirmed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
P.C.: 1.Heard learned Counsel for the Revenue. This is a Motion for condonation of delay of about 128 days in filing an Appeal. Delay has been explained in the Affidavit filed by the Revenue. It is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent by filing a counter Affidavit. He placed reliance on the earlier order of this Court dated 2[nd] April 2009 in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Trust House Commerce Centre Pvt. Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.440 of 2009 In Notice of Motion No.3627 of 2003 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1194 of 2003) wherein the Appeal for the period 1996-97 was dismissed by a reasoned order while considering prayer of condonation of delay of about 196 days. In that case, the Appeal was filed against the very same order of the Tribunal wherein judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Aljali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 178 was relied upon by the Tribunal. The same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the present Appeal in which Assessment Year is 1997-98 and which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal. The earlier Appeal came to be dismissed in default. Thereafter a restoration application was moved. That also resulted in dismissal. Under these circumstances, by a detailed reasoned order, the Notice of Motion was dismissed. The view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier order similar to one in the present impugned order was confirmed. 2.Under these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in condoning the delay. The Notice of Motion is, therefore, rejected. [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.] [V.C. DAGA, 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