1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2359 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2360 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – VI, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s. Tata Infomedia Limited, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.Dhananjay Athavale for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 2nd July, 2009 P.C. : 1. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue submits that he has not been briefed in these appeals, even the papers are not supplied to him by the department. Under these circumstances, he is unable to proceed with the matter. Faced with this situation, we have no option but to dismiss the appeals for want of prosecution. 2. At this juncture, needless to mention that though both the appeals are barred by limitation by 147 days, no notices of motion are taken out by the revenue for condonation of delay. It is also relevant to note here 2 that though there is a prayer for condonation of delay in both these appeals, however no material facts and/or particulars are disclosed in the appeal memo much less a statement on oath giving explanation is filed on record. 3. In this view of the matter, for want of Notices of motion as well as sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay, both the appeals are dismissed being barred by limitation as well as for want of prosecution with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)