( 1 ) 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.4410 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4410 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4410 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.32 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.32 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.32 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Tarun Shipping & Inds.Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.R.Asokan for the Appellant. Mr.Sameer Dalal for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 10th June, 2008 DATE : 10th June, 2008 DATE : 10th June, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 1425 days delay caused in filing the Appeal. Last time, we found the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion to be totally unsatisfactory, hence we had directed the Appellant to file better affidavit thereby explaining the delay in a fair and reasonable manner. Mr.Asokan, the learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the concerned officer is on leave and will resume on 16th June, 2008 and hence the better affidavit has not been filed. So far as appeal is concerned, it pertains to the Assessment Year 1998-1999 and the ITAT’s order is dated 14th June, 2002 and hence, we do not find any reasonable ground to grant any further adjournment. Any officer of the Appellant other than the aforesaid concerned officer who has gone on leave, could have filed better affidavit explaining the ( 2 ) delay, but there is no such better affidavit. It seems that the Appellant has no interest in pursuing the matter. The affidavit in support does not even mention as to when the folder was sent to the Advocate for drafting the memo of Appeal. The said affidavit is totally silent about the delay. No sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay caused in filing the Appeal. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the ITXA (L) No.32 of 2007 also stands dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)