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. 719 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 719 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 719 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 2403 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 2403 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 2403 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Mumbai. ...Appellant V/s. Yashraj Chopra ...Respondent Mr.A.K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 20, 2008 DATED : JUNE 20, 2008 DATED : JUNE 20, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This is an application for condonation of 563 days delay in filing the present appeal which is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 8th November, 2004. In the application and the affidavit annexed to the Notice of Motion, no explanation of whatsoever nature has been tendered. What is stated is that appeal was to be filed on 3rd May, 2006 and it has been filed on 17th November, 2006 and the delay should be condoned. Even the dates given in the affidavit do not state as to what steps were taken and why the delay should be condoned. The right as accrued to the assessee which cannot be taken away in a mechanical - 2 - manner and it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to show that there is sufficient cause for condoning such an inordinate delay which is unexplained. We may also notice here that this case has been called out three times in the morning and nobody was present on behalf of the applicant. We see no reason to condone the delay as no sufficient cause has been shown. 2. The application is dismissed and the appeal does not survive for consideration. It is, accordingly, disposed of. 3. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has also brought to our notice that the question of law framed in the present appeal is squarely covered on fact and law by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court under Vol.267 ITR Page 488 Vol.267 ITR Page 488 Vol.267 ITR Page 488 in the case of Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Assistant Commissioner of Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Assistant Commissioner of Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and others. Income-Tax and others. Income-Tax and others. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE - 3 - V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.