1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3980 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2401 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The Director of Income Tax-3 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant Mr.A.K.Jasani i/b Mr.S.S.Shetty for the respondent CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SANTOSH BORA, JJ. SANTOSH BORA, JJ. SANTOSH BORA, JJ. DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2008 DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2008 DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 667 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. 2. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion. It appears that though the last date for filing the Appeal was 14.12.05 and the Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval for 2 filing an Appeal on 16.12.05 the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on 12.10.07 i.e. after a lapse of almost 1 year 10 months. 3. We are not satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay. The reasons given for delay is that inspite of best efforts and for reasons beyond the control of the appellant’s office including administrative difficulties and the voluminous work of typing, checking and compilation of documents, the appeal could be filed only on 12.10.07 which does not appear to be justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 2401 of 2007 also stands dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to adopt appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned official who has been responsible for the above delay. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) 3 (SANTOSH BORA, J.) (SANTOSH BORA, J.) (SANTOSH BORA, J.)