=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.1916 OF 2008 MOTION NO.1916 OF 2008 MOTION NO.1916 OF 2008 IN IN IN INOCOME INOCOME INOCOME TAX TAX TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1629 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO.1629 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO.1629 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...Appellant v/s Mr Harish V. Parekh Mumbai 400 009 ...Respondent Ms Anamika Chatterji for Appellant. Mr K.B. Bhogale for Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 22ND AUGUST 2008 22ND AUGUST 2008 22ND AUGUST 2008 =2= P.C.- 1. The order challenged in the appeal is dated 7th September 2006. An application for rectification was filed before the Appellate Authority on 25th January 2007. That application was rejected on 22nd May 2007. It appears that thereafter the Income Tax Department decided to approach lawyer for challenging the order passed in the rectification application but in the affidavit, there is nothing as to what steps were taken by the I.T. Department in so far as challenge to the principal order passed in appeal is concerned. It appears that on 9th October 2007, the lawyer opined that for challenging the order passed on the rectification application, appropriate remedy is filing a writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 22nd February 2008 and it was withdrawn on 11th March 2008 and the present appeal has been filed on 28th May 2008. So far as the period from 19th June 2007 to 1st January 2008 is concerned, when admittedly the order passed by the Tribunal on rectification application was also received by the Commissioner, the only explanation is about the steps taken to challenge the order passed in rectification application and there is nothing in the affidavit filed in support of the motion to show why =3= challenge to the principal order was not made. In the absence of any explanation for the delay for the period from 19th June 2007 to 1st January 2008, obviously the delay cannot be condoned. The notice of motion is therefore disposed off. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)