IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3482 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3482 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3482 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1868 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1868 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1868 OF 2007 The Director of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. Twentieth Century Fox International Corporation .. Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.W.Hasan i/by Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 2nd April, 2008 DATE : 2nd April, 2008 DATE : 2nd April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 481 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion. We are not satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay. No sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. As stated in the affidavit, it appears that the last date for filing the Appeal was 20.04.2006, however it came to be filed on 14.08.2007. It is stated that the draft memo of Appeal was ready on 20.04.2006 however it came to be filed on 14.08.2007 for almost one year and four months later. The reasons given for delay that there was a shortage of stamps etc. does not appear to be justifiable. We are not at all convinced by the reasons given in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 2. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1868/2007 also stands dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)