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.1177/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.333/2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1177/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.333/2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1177/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.333/2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1180/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.334/2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1180/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.334/2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1180/2007 IN ITXA (L) NO.334/2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. Shri.Salil S.Parekh .. Respondent Mr.P.P.Kakade the Appellant. None 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 : 15th April, 2008 DATE : 15th April, 2008 DATE : 15th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By these Notices of Motion Nos.1177/2006 & 1180/2006 the Appellant is seeking condonation of 409 days’ & 332 days’ delay caused in filing the respective Appeals. Perused the affidavits-in-support of the Notices of Motion. It appears that the Chief CIT had granted approval for filing the respective Appeals on 31.03.2006 & 4.4.2006, however the Appeals came to be filed belatedly on 22.2.2007. We are not satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay. The reasons given for delay that of getting the draft memo of Appeal prepared and the administrative exigencies & procedural formalities etc. does not appear to be justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Hence, both the Notices of Motion stand dismissed. 2. In view of dismissal of both the Notices of Motion, the respective Income Tax Appeals also stand 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.)