:1: :1: :1: 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. 2202 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO. 2202 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO. 2202 OF 2006 IN IN IN INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO. 1194 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO. 1194 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO. 1194 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax ....Appellant V/s. M/s.Kesar Enterprises Ltd ....Respondents. ====== Mr.Benny Chatterji with Mr.A.S.Rao, Advocate for the Appellants. Ms.Asifa Khan, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.RANJANA DESAI, & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: 18TH JUNE, 2008. 18TH JUNE, 2008. 18TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Motion is taken out by the appellant for condonation of delay. There is 420 days delay in filing the appeal. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr.Devendra J. Shah, Company Secretary of the respondent company. Paragraph 7 thereof reads as under: :2: :2: :2: "7. I further state that the tax effect in the said appeal is less than Rs.4 lacs (i.e.Rs.2,00,000/-) hence, this appeal cannot survive as per the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Further, even on the merit of the case the issue is covered in favour of the respondent by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v.New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. (269 ITR 397)." 2. There is no dispute about the fact that tax effect of this bill is about Rs.2 lacs. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that in view of the circular referred to in the above quoted paragraph in the facts of this case the appeal cannot be entertained. Hence, motion dismissed. Needless to say that the appeal also stands dismissed. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J)