1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3485 of 2004 in I.T. APPEAL (L) NO.1461 2004 The C.I.T. City-V .. .. Appellant v/s. M/s.Trust House Centre (P)Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.R. Ashokan for Appellant. Ms.Aafisa Khan for Respondent. ------ CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 19th JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1.Heard learned Counsel for the Revenue. This is a Motion for condonation of delay of about 128 days in filing an Appeal. Delay has been explained in the Affidavit filed by the Revenue. It is strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent by filing a counter Affidavit. He placed reliance on the earlier order of this Court dated 2nd April 2009 in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Trust House Commerce Centre Pvt. Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.440 of 2009 In Notice of Motion No.3627 of 2003 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1194 of 2003) wherein the Appeal for the 2 period 1996-97 was dismissed by a reasoned order while considering prayer of condonation of delay of about 196 days. In that case, the Appeal was filed against the very same order of the Tribunal wherein judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Aljali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 178 was relied upon by the Tribunal. The same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the present Appeal in which Assessment Year is 1997-98 and which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal. The earlier Appeal came to be dismissed in default. Thereafter a restoration application was moved. That also resulted in dismissal. Under these circumstances, by a detailed reasoned order, the Notice of Motion was dismissed. The view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier order similar to one in the present impugned order was confirmed. 2.Under these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in condoning the delay. The Notice of Motion is, therefore, rejected. [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.] [V.C. DAGA, J.]