(-1-) MGN 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. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 31st March, 2009 DATED: 31st March, 2009 DATED: 31st March, 2009 P.C.: 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.) (R.S.MOHITE,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)