1 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 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.4227 OF MOTION NO.4227 OF MOTION NO.4227 OF 2006 inin in INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. of TAX APPEAL (L) NO. of TAX APPEAL (L) NO. of The The The Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner of Income Tax of Income Tax of Income Tax City City City 17. 17. 17. ...... Appellant Appellant Appellant vs vs vs M/s M/s M/s Rajeev Ship Breakers.. Rajeev Ship Breakers.. Rajeev Ship Breakers.. Respondents Respondents Respondents Mr.R.Asokan Mr.R.Asokan Mr.R.Asokan for for for Appellant Appellant Appellant CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND R.S.MOHITE, R.S.MOHITE, R.S.MOHITE, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. This is a Notice of Motion for condoning This is a Notice of Motion for condoning This is a Notice of Motion for condoning 505 days days days delay in filing of the aforesaid Income Tax delay in filing of the aforesaid Income Tax delay in filing of the aforesaid Income Tax Appeal. Appeal. Appeal. A perusal of the affidavit in support of A perusal of the affidavit in support of A perusal of the affidavit in support of the the the Notice of Motion indicates that the Chief Notice of Motion indicates that the Chief Notice of Motion indicates that the Chief Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner of Income Tax granted approval for of Income Tax granted approval for of Income Tax granted approval for filing filing filing of the appeal on 12/5/2005 (wrongly tryped of the appeal on 12/5/2005 (wrongly tryped of the appeal on 12/5/2005 (wrongly tryped as as as 12/5/2006). Thereafter the matter was sent to 12/5/2006). Thereafter the matter was sent to 12/5/2006). Thereafter the matter was sent to the the the Advocate for drafting the appeal on 17/5/2005. Advocate for drafting the appeal on 17/5/2005. Advocate for drafting the appeal on 17/5/2005. The The The draft appeal however was collected from the draft appeal however was collected from the draft appeal however was collected from the advocate advocate advocate on on on 22/5/2006 i.e. after a period of about 22/5/2006 i.e. after a period of about 22/5/2006 i.e. after a period of about one one one year. year. year. In our view, the delay caused during the In our view, the delay caused during the In our view, the delay caused during the period period period from 17/5/2005 to 22/5/2006 has not been from 17/5/2005 to 22/5/2006 has not been from 17/5/2005 to 22/5/2006 has not been explained. explained. explained. The cause shown is therefore not The cause shown is therefore not The cause shown is therefore not sufficient sufficient sufficient cause. Consequently, Notice of Motion cause. Consequently, Notice of Motion cause. Consequently, Notice of Motion stands stands stands dismissed. dismissed. dismissed.