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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.wartsila Diesel India Ltd

High Court 31 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.wartsila Diesel India Ltd
Date of order
31 Mar 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.wartsila Diesel India 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.
(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1021 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1145 of 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax....Appellant Vs. M/s.Wartsila Diesel India Ltd...Respondent Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 31st March, 2009 CORAM: F.I. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 31st March, 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.)
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