1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1066 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1066 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1066 OF 2008 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 579 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 579 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 579 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Mumbai. .. Appellant. vs. Pankaj N. Mehta. .. Respondent. Mr. A.S. Rao for Appellant. Ms. Usha I. Dalal for Respondent. CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & SANTOSH BORA, JJ. SANTOSH BORA, JJ. SANTOSH BORA, JJ. DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008. DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008. DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. . By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 1049 days delay caused in filing the Appeal. 2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion. It appears that though the last date for filing the Appeal was 14.04.2005 and the Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval for filing an Appeal 2 on 07.04.2005 the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on 27.02.2008 i.e. after the lapse of 1049 days. The only reason given is that the delay occurred due to various administrative steps involved in filing the above appeal. 3. We are not satisfied with the above reasoning. No sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the notice of motion, the appeal also stands dismissed. (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (SANTOSH BORA, J.) (SANTOSH BORA, J.) (SANTOSH BORA, J.)