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.756 OF 200 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.756 OF 200 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.756 OF 2008 IN IN IN INTEREST TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2 OF 2008 INTEREST TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2 OF 2008 INTEREST TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2 OF 2008 The CIT-2, Mumbai .. Appellant Vs. Union Bank of India .. Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 3rd June, 2008 DATE : 3rd June, 2008 DATE : 3rd June, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondent though served. The learned Counsel for the Respondent undertakes to file an affidavit of service within a period of one week from today. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 134 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion, sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay, and there is no case of inaction, negligence or want of bonafide on the part of the Appellant. Hence, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)