(-1-) hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 564 OF 2009 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 564 OF 2009 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 564 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTON NO. 1883 OF 2007 ALONG WITH ALONG WITH ALONG WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1465 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1465 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1465 OF 2008 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 954 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 954 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 954 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus Shri. Brijmohan Gupta ... Respondent Mr. R. Ashokan for the Appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for Respondent. 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: APRIL 02, 2009 DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 DATED: APRIL 02, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The revenue had preferred the appeal which was filed beyond the period of prescribed limitation by 133 days. The motion was taken out for condoning the delay being N.M.A. No. 1183 of 2008. By order dated 16.2.2008 the delay was condoned subject to payment of cost as set out therein. The order was specific that the payment of cost was condition precedent and on failure to pay the cost, the appeal would stand dismissed for non prosecution., The revenue failed to pay the cost within the stipulated time. . The second motion was thereafter taken out being (-2-) N.M.A. No. 1465 of 2008 for condoning 11 days delay in taking out the motion and seeking extension of time to remove office objections. This motion came to be dismissed by order dated 23.4.2008 for the reasons set out therein. . The revenue has now taken out third motion wherein they pray firstly for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal and to restore the same to file which was dismissed for default under the self operated order dated 16.2.2007. How such relief is available only revenue can know. The second prayer is for recalling the order dated 23.4.2008 and for some other relief. . In our opinion, once the motion for recalling the order dismissing the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no motion would be maintainable except an application for review, which is not the case over here before this court. . Considering the above, motion dismsised. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)