( 1 ) 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.3649 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3649 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3649 OF 2008 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2000 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2000 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2000 OF 2008 The CIT - 8 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.KEC International Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.Nilesh Joshi with Mr.Sandeep Sharma i/by M/s.Shaunak Satpure for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ. V.C.DAGA, JJ. V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATE : 17th November, 2008. DATE : 17th November, 2008. DATE : 17th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 1905 days delay caused in filing the Appeal. The Appeal is against the ITAT’s order dated 5th November, 2002. 2. Perused the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. It appears that though the Chief CIT had granted approval for filing the Appeal on 9.4.2003, the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on 3.7.2008. No sufficient cause is shown in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion for condonation of delay caused in filing the Appeal. The reasons given for condonation of delay that of getting the draft memo of Appeal prepared, some difficulties arising between the Panel Counsel and the Income Tax Department, and other reasons stated to ( 2 ) be beyond the control of the Appellant’s office including that of administrative exigencies and the procedural formalaties etc. are not sufficient to condone the delay. We are not satisfied with the said reasons given in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. We are rather amazed that even after the Chief CIT granting approval for filing the Appeal, the Department took more than five years time to tile the Appeal, and that too without sufficient reasons for the same. 3. Hence, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Notice of Motion is therefore dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the Appeal also stands dismissed. 5. So far as the present matter is concerned, we therefore direct the learned Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to enquire & fix the responsibility as to why there is such a long delay of about 1905 days in filing the Appeal when the tax effect involved in the case is Rs.73,32,375/-. The aforesaid enquiry and fixing of responsibility as to the delay caused in filing the Appeal, will, in a long way, definitely be a step towards the improvement of the Department, since we find matter after matter, where ( 3 ) there is a delay ranging from 400 to 2000 days, over and above and in addition to the statutory limit of 120 days provided by the statute itself. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)