1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3867 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Vinod Housewares, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by Mr.K.R. Chaudhari for the appellant. None for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3912 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Central Bank of India, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3916, 3918, 3919 & 3920 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Central Bank of India ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009 P.C. : 1. These appeals are barred by limitation. Admittedly, no notices of motion are taken out. There is no prayer for condonation of delay. No sufficient cause is shown. Apart from this, following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2009 (238) ELT 705 (S.C.), we have held in the case of CIT V/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (L) No.3592 2008) decided on 8/7/2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In this view of the matter, all the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)