K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.797 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1116 OF 2007 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.799 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.903 OF 2007 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.800 OF 2009 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.905 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, office Memorandum of Coram Court’s or Judge’s orders appearance, Court’s orders & Prothonotary’s orders ---------------------------------------------------- Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellants. Mr.S.S.Shetty for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 25.3.2009. PC 1. These appeals were dismissed for non prosecution. Motions for restoration were taken out after 219 days. The appeals were dismissed as vakalatnamas were not filed in the matters though this Court has by various orders been directing that : 2 : vakalatnamas be filed. As noted in earlier orders this is a bench taking up matters pertaining to direct/indirect taxes. Counsels for the revenue are before this Court every day as also officers. In the affidavits filed for showing cause, it is contended that the department was, to the best of its ability has been acting bonafidely and has been vigilent. We have been condoning delay as a matter of course up to 400 days considering the difficulties which the department had pointed out. There was further an assurance that they would change. Department has taken this as a license in filing appeals as a matter of course ater this statutory period of limitation is over. Counsel for the assessees have been urging before this Court the unfairness cosidering that the assessees have to settle their books and appeals are being registered after long delay in orders dismissing appeals recalled. 2. In the present cases as noted earlier the appeals were dismissed as : 3 : vakalatnamas were not filed. The motions have been taken out after 219 days. The least the department could have done was to immediately file vakalatnama and move the Court at the earliest. Time was allowed to lapse. No sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. In our opinion, it is not possible to accept the explanation offerred and consequently motions dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)