bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2268 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.2268 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.2268 OF 2008 IN IN IN INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1667 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1667 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1667 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Indokem Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.Ravi Pattesar i/b.D.M.Harish & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 11TH DECEMBER, 2008 : 11TH DECEMBER, 2008 : 11TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking the condonation of 1884 days’ delay in filing the above Appeal. In the above, the Appellant is challenging the order dated 18th September, 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval for filing an Appeal on 3rd March, 2003. However, the present Appeal has been lodged only on 30th May, 2008 i.e. after a lapse of almost 5 years. The reasons given for causing such a gross delay are, that the Appellant has been diligently following the matter for filing the Appeal on the due date itself, however for the reasons beyond the control of the Appellant which includes the administrative difficulties, the Appeal could not be filed in time. 2. We are not at all satisfied with the reasons :2: given for causing such a delay and we are not inclined to entertain the present Notice of Motion. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the above Appeal also stands dismissed. 4. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes for information and appropriate action against the concerned Officer of the Revenue, who is responsible to file an Appeal within time. It has been noticed by this Court that number of Appeals are filed involving delay ranging from 500 days to 2000 days, and the same are being dismissed by this Court for want of sufficient explanation. However, no responsibility is fixed on the Officer committing such lapse for delayed filing of Appeal. We are of the considered opinion that unless responsibility is fixed on the erring Officer, administration may not see any improvement. We hope that the Chairman, CBDT will personally look into the matter and take corrective steps and shall fix responsibility of the instant matter and take action in accordance with law. Compliance report, if submitted, would be highly appreciated. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)