((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2594 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1409 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Vs. M/s. Morarjee Goculdas Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. A.D. Kango for the Appellant. Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 15, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 15, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 15, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . There is delay of 407 days in preferring this appeal. There is affidavit in support of the motion. We find that the order was received in the office of the CIT on 21.2.2005. The CIT VI recommended filing of appeal on 2.9.2005. In between some other steps have also been taken. The file was sent to Ministry of Law on 19.9.2005 and the same was returned by Ministry of Law on 15.12.2005. The draft was duly received on 13.2.2006 and the appeal was field on 1.8.2006. It is sought to be explained that there were no stamp papers. The appeal was field on 1.8.2006. The tax incidence in the instant case is Rs. 42.45 crores. ((-2-)) There is no doubt that there is some delay on the part of the Revenue which has not been properly explained. However, considering the fact that the appeal has been field and substantial period of the appeal has been explained, in our opinion, this would be a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction to condone the delay. At the highest the respondents can be compensated in terms of cost. In the light of the above, the delay condoned subject to appellant paying cost to the respondent quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)