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. 3221 OF 2008 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) No. 1264 OF 2008 The C.I.T. Central II. .. Appellant. Vs M/s Parle Beverages Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr P. S. Sahadevan, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr A. K. Jasani, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In the above appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 19.4.2006 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1977/M/97. The Department took two years and eight months to get the memo of appeal drafted and thereafter above appeal has been filed on 28.4.2008. However, the affidavit in support of notice of motion states that delay is not due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the appellant. We are not at all satisfied with the reasoning given in the affidavit. No case is made out for condoning the delay. 3. In the above circumstances, we are left with no alternative but to dismiss the notice of motion for want of sufficient cause in filing the appeal belatedly. 4. In the result, notice of motion stands dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of notice of motion, appeal also stands dismissed. (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J)