1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2628 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai ..Appellant V/s. M/s.Tracstar Investments Limited ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2644 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Saushish Diamonds Limited, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2645 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.S.N.N. Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2649 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Jain Watch Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2650 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 5, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Vishwas Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2690 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Hotel Leela Venture Limited, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2700 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2701 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2702 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Pfizer Limited, Mumbai ..Respondent. WEALTH TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2643 OF 2008 AND WEALTH TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2646 OF 2008 2 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax – 5, Mumbai ..Appellant V/s. M/s.Shukra Jewellery Limited ..Appellant. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant in ITXA (L) No.2628 of 2008. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan holding for Mr.R. Asokan for the appellant in ITXA (L) Nos.2644, 2645, 2649 & 2650 of 2008 & WTXA (L) Nos.2643 & 2646 of 2008. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant in ITXA (L) No.2690, 2700, 2701, 2702 of 2008. None for the respondent in ITXA (L) Nos.2628, 2644, 2645, 2649, 2650 & 2690/2008. Mr.Rajiv Singh i/by Chitnis & Co., for the respondents in ITXA (L) 2700, 2701 & 2702/2008. Mr.Jitendra Jain with Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondents in WTXA (L) Nos.2643 & 2646 of 2008. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 2nd July, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. There is delay in filing both these appeals. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan, learned counsel states that no notices of motion for condoning the delay caused in filing these appeals have been taken out by the revenue. Since there are no notices of motion for condonation of delay, the appeals are liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention here that though there is a prayer for condonation of delay in all these appeals, but no material facts and/or particulars are disclosed in the appeal memo much less any statement is made on oath giving explanation for delayed filing of appeals. 3. In this view of the matter, for want of Notices of motion as well as sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, both the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)