1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2979 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.160 OF 2006 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2980 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.515 OF 2006 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1618 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.639 of 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.745 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21 .... .... .... .... ....Appellant. Versus M/s.Ray Bel Consortium .... .... .... .... .... .... ....Respondents. Mr.Abhay Ahujafor the appellant. Ms.Aasifa Khan for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties on the notices of motion taken out by the revenue for restoration of two appeals. 2 2. The revenue has filed affidavit in support of the notices of motion, explaining delay and the circumstances, resulting in ultimate dismissal of these appeals in default. 3. The statements made in the affidavit are strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. She tried to demonstrate the serious lapses on the part of the Revenue in prosecuting these appeals. In our considered opinion, learned counsel for the Respondent is justified in criticizing the lax attitude on the part of the of the Revenue and contending that only when this Court observed in an order dated 7-8-2009 that heavy amount of costs would be saddled on the Revenue, if no steps are taken to restore appeals within stipulated period, the department realized importance of moving subject motions. In these circumstances, the opposition to the condonation of delay and for restoration of appeal cannot be said to be unfounded. CONSIDERATION 4. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. During the course of hearing, it came to our notice that out of five appeals, two appeals were dismissed in default, whereas three other appeals involving identical question are still alive. In the circumstances, we are inclined to restore the appeals by condoning delay, however, it cannot be without levying costs. Looking to the heavy stakes involved in the appeal, more than Rs.1 crore, restoration and condonation of delay shall be subject to deposit of costs of Rs.30,000/- in aggregate for both the appeals, for 3 being paid to the Respondents. The amount of costs so deposited is to be recovered, following principles of natural justice, from the Officer, who may have been responsible for not attending the matters diligently and allowing them to be dismissed in default. 5. The amount of costs to be paid within two weeks from today and recovery thereof to be made from the concerned Officer within three months thereafter under intimation to this Court. Needless to mention that in the event of non-deposit of costs, the notices of motion shall be deemed to have been rejected. 6. Both the notices of motion are thus disposed of in terms of this order. 7. The appellant is directed to remove office objections, in the appeals which are on lodging numbers, within four weeks from today, failing which the appeals shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to the Court. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)