1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.891 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Mr Sanjay Narang ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. Jitendra Jain for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.893 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Oceanice Exports ..Respondent. Mr. D.K. Kamwal for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.896 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. N. Mohanlal & Co. ..Respondent. Mr. A.S. Shivsaran for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.897 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.898 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.902 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Central Tyres ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. S.S. Shetty & Hiro Rai for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.900 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Shantinath Baburao Nawale ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. S.N. Inamdar for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.901 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Nabhiraj Baburao Hawale ..Respondent. Mr. P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. 2 Mr. S.N. Inamdar for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.916 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Searle (India) Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for appellant. Mr. B.V. Jha veri with Priti Shukla for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.931 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Mukund Ltd. ..Respondent. Mrs. Devki Iyer for appellant. Mr. A.K. Jasani for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.948 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Hiralal Warehousing Corporation ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan with A.A. Mane for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. All the above appeals which are placed for admission today, were in fact placed for admission on an earlier occasion when conditional order was passed to the effect that all office objections should be removed within the time stipulated therein, failing which the appeals shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. 2. Admittedly, the office objections have not been removed in all the above appeals within the stipulated time though the appeals are pending in this Court for sufficiently long time. It is pertinent to note that wherever extension of time for removal of office objections were sought within the period specified, this Court has granted extension of time. However, in all the above matters, neither the objections are removed within the stipulated time nor extension of time is sought for removing the office objections. As a result, the conditional order has become operational and all the above appeals stood dismissed for want of removal of office objections after the expiry of the stipulated time. In this view of the matter, no further order is necessary. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)