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.3250 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3250 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3250 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1767 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1767 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1767 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Weizmann Ltd. .. Respondent WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3251 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3251 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3251 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1768 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1768 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1768 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Weizmann Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.A.S.Rao with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 2nd April, 2008 DATE : 2nd April, 2008 DATE : 2nd April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By these Notices of Motion, the Appellant-revenue is seeking condonation of 1075 days’ delay caused in filing the aforesaid Appeals. 2. Perused the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. As stated therein, it appears that the impugned order was passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench on 24.3.2004 and the said order was received by the Department which handles Appeals on 27.04.2004, and thereafter the matter was referred to the Assessing Officer, DCIT (HQ)-1, Mumbai, who submitted his report on 23.08.2006 recommending thereby filing of the Appeal. It appears that the Assessing Officer did not take action till 23.08.2006 i.e.almost for a period of 26 months and thereafter recommended for filing of the Appeals. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the Assessing Officer took almost 26 months to recommend filing of the Appeals. No sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay caused in filing of the Appeals. The affidavits in support of both the Notices of Motion are without sufficient explanation. Hence, both the Notices of Motion stand dismissed. 3. Appellant - Revenue Department is directed to take action against the concerned Assessing Officer, DCIT (HQ)-1, Mumbai, for his belated filing of the report thereby delaying his recommedations for filing of the Appeals almost for a period of 26 months. Department to take appropriate action against the concerned Assissing Officer and recover loss which occurred to the Department, in accordance with law. 4. In view of dismissal of both the Notices of Motion, both the respective Appeals also stand dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)