bgp bgp bgp 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 CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3539 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.3539 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.3539 OF 2008 IN IN IN INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.605 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL (L)NO.605 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL (L)NO.605 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Tips Industries Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.Deepak Talashiwala with Mr.V.S.Hadade for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking the condonation of 1326 days’ delay in filing the above Appeal. Perused the Notice of Motion and Affidavit-in-support thereof. 2. It appears, that the Appellant is challenging the impugned order dated 29th January, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval for filing an Appeal on 12th July, 2004. However, the present Appeal has been lodged on 29th February, 2008 i.e. after a lapse of almost four years and six months. The reasons given for causing such a gross delay are, that of various administrative steps involved which were beyond the control of the Revenue. We are not at all satisfied with the reasons given for :2: condoning the delay. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the above Appeal also stands dismissed. 4. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes for information and appropriate action against the concerned Officer of the Revenue, who is responsible to file an Appeal within time. It has been noticed by this Court that number of Appeals are filed involving delay ranging from 500 days to 2000 days, and the same are being dismissed by this Court for want of sufficient explanation. However, no responsibility is fixed on the Officer committing such lapse for delayed filing of Appeal. We are of the considered opinion that unless responsibility is fixed on the erring Officer, administration may not see any improvement. We hope that the Chairman, CBDT will personally look into the matter and take corrective steps and shall fix responsibility of the instant matter and take action in accordance with law. Compliance report, if submitted, would be highly appreciated. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)