1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.256 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Balbir Singh Goyal ..Respondent. Mr. A.S. Shivsharan for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.291 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Uniflex Cables Ltd. ..Respondent. Ms Padma Divekar for appellant. None for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.339 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. National Plastic Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistry with A.K. Jasani for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.340 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. MTZ (Industries) Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. Jitendra Jain with Jas Singvhi i/b. PDS Legal for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.362 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. Mr. Jitendra jain with Jas Saghvi i/b. PDS Legal for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.367 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.368 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.369 OF 2008 Director Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) ..Appellant. 2 V/s. Argoma N.V. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. Mr. Jas Saghvi i/b. PDS Legal for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.385 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.386 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.388 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. Mr. S.J. Mehta for respondent. AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.389 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Travel Agents Association of India ..Respondent. Mr. P.S. Sahadaven for appellant. Ms. Aasifa Khan for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. All the above appeals which are placed for admission today, were in fact placed for admission on an earlier occasion when conditional order was passed to the effect that all office objections should be removed within the time stipulated therein, failing which the appeals shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. 2. Admittedly, the office objections have not been removed in all the above appeals within the stipulated time though the appeals are pending in this Court for sufficiently long time. It is pertinent to note that wherever extension of time for removal of office objections were sought within the period specified, this Court has granted extension of time. However, in all the above matters, neither the objections are removed within the stipulated time nor extension of time is sought for removing the office objections. As a result, the conditional order has become operational and all the above appeals stood dismissed for want of removal of office objections after the expiry of the stipulated time. In this view of the matter, no further order is necessary. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)