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 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.3656 OF MOTION NO.3656 OF MOTION NO.3656 OF 2006 inin in INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX TAX TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2101 of 2006 APPEAL (L) NO.2101 of 2006 APPEAL (L) NO.2101 of 2006 The The The Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner of Income Tax of Income Tax of Income Tax City City City 12 Mumbai 12 Mumbai 12 Mumbai ...... Appellant Appellant Appellant vs vs vs M/s M/s M/s Tulsiani Tulsiani Tulsiani Sumer Associates. .. Respondents Sumer Associates. .. Respondents Sumer Associates. .. Respondents Mr.A.S.Rao Mr.A.S.Rao Mr.A.S.Rao for Appellant for Appellant for Appellant CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND R.S.MOHITE, R.S.MOHITE, R.S.MOHITE, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. This is a Notice of Motion for condoning 674 This is a Notice of Motion for condoning 674 This is a Notice of Motion for condoning 674 days days days delay in filing of the aforesaid Income Tax delay in filing of the aforesaid Income Tax delay in filing of the aforesaid Income Tax Appeal. Appeal. Appeal. A perusal of the affidavit in support of A perusal of the affidavit in support of A perusal of the affidavit in support of the the the Notice Notice Notice of Motion it is seen that after approval of Motion it is seen that after approval of Motion it is seen that after approval was was was obtained for filing an appeal, the papers were obtained for filing an appeal, the papers were obtained for filing an appeal, the papers were sent sent sent to the panel counsel on 20/12/2005. The memo to the panel counsel on 20/12/2005. The memo to the panel counsel on 20/12/2005. The memo of of of appeal was however returned back on 11/5/2006 appeal was however returned back on 11/5/2006 appeal was however returned back on 11/5/2006 and and and therefore there is a delay of almost 6 months therefore there is a delay of almost 6 months therefore there is a delay of almost 6 months for for for drafting the appeal memo. For the purpose of drafting the appeal memo. For the purpose of drafting the appeal memo. For the purpose of processing processing processing the file in order to decide whether an the file in order to decide whether an the file in order to decide whether an appeal appeal appeal should be filed, the matter remained under should be filed, the matter remained under should be filed, the matter remained under consideration consideration consideration from 11/10/2004 to 20/12/2005 for a from 11/10/2004 to 20/12/2005 for a from 11/10/2004 to 20/12/2005 for a period period period of almost 10 months. The delay caused of almost 10 months. The delay caused of almost 10 months. The delay caused during during during the aforesaid two periods is not the aforesaid two periods is not the aforesaid two periods is not satisfactorily satisfactorily satisfactorily explained. In our view, therefore explained. In our view, therefore explained. In our view, therefore the the the cause shown is not sufficient cause. cause shown is not sufficient cause. cause shown is not sufficient cause. 2.2.2. Consequently, Notice of Motion is dismissed. Consequently, Notice of Motion is dismissed. Consequently, Notice of Motion is dismissed.