IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 792 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 792 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 792 OF 2009 IN IN IN INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2817 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2817 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2817 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 793 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 793 OF 2009 OF MOTION NO. 793 OF 2009 IN IN IN INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2816 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2816 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 2816 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income-tax, City-VI, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd. ... Respondent. J.S.Saluja for the appellant. for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 16th April 2009. : 16th April 2009. : 16th April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused record. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 14th September, 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby three appeals for the assessment years 1987-88; 1988-89; and 1989-90 were decided. One of appeals being Income Tax Appeal (Ldg.) No.2818/2008 arising out the impugned order for the assessment year 1989-90, which was also suffering from delay, came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13th March, 2009 for want of cause of action in view of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay. 3. In all the three appeals common questions of fact and law are involved. The extent of delay is also identical. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the dismissal of one appeal for the assessment year 1989-90 will give finality to the impugned order. With the result, the present two appeals, which also suffer from the same extent of delay, cannot be entertained by condoning delay. Both motions for condonation of delay are dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. Needless to mention that in view of dismissal of notices of motion, appeal papers be consigned to record. (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA J.) J.) J.)