1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.218 OF 1994 Johnson & Johnson Limited ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City V, Bombay ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.277 OF 1994 Mr.K. Bala Ram ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, City XI, Bombay ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.332 OF 1994 M/s.Associated Capsules Limited ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City V, Bombay ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.5 OF 1998 Talwalkar Bhalerao & Mate, Pune ..Appellant. Versus The C.I.T., Pune ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.8 OF 1998 Bhaskaracharya Pratisthan ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.10 OF 1998 Draupadi G. Jagrianey ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, City IX, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.13 OF 1998 Chemiequip Limited ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, City V, Mumbai ..Respondent. 2 INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.69 OF 1998 Mexin Medicaments Limited ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – I, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.129 OF 1998 S.S. Jain & Co. ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, City XIII ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.134 OF 1998 Khira Mehta Shah & Associates ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, City – IX, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.138 OF 1998 Echjay Industries Limited ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, City V, Mumbai ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.154 OF 1998 Janata Sahakari Bank Limited ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune ..Respondent. INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.171 Of 1998 Shyam Ahuja Limited ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax City VI, Mumbai ..Respondent. WEALTH TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.35 OF 1990 Sardar Devinder Singh Sahney ..Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay – IV ..Respondent. WEALTH TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.47 OF 1990 Atul C. Choksey (HUF) ..Appellant. Versus Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay ..Respondent. 3 WEALTH TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.256 OF 1990 Sushil Kumar Thirani ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central, Bombay ..Respondent. WEALTH TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.266 OF 1990 Asha A. Vakil Trust ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay ..Respondent. WEALTH TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.493 OF 1990 Smita Krishna ..Appellant. Versus The Commissione of Wealth Tax, Bombay ..Respondent. WEALTH TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.495 OF 1990 Vijay and Raj Families Trust ..Appellant. Versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay ..Respondent. None for the appellant in all these matters. None for the respondent in all these matters. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. None present for the parties. Perused relevant references. 2. All these matters were called out since the matters were pending in this Court right from the years 1994 and 1998. Almost more than 14 years have passed in some of the matters, whereas in some more than 10 years have passed. No steps have been taken by the assessees at whose instance the statements of case 4 in their respective cases have been forwarded by the Tribunal. 3. This Court had issued notices to the parties to the references. They were called upon to take steps by approaching the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court and to take steps as required under section 657 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 (“Rules for short) so as to place the references on board for final disposal since the provision of rule 657 required the person at whose instance reference has been made to take necessary steps to supply paper book. In the event of noncompliance of rule 659, the matters were required to be placed on Board for orders. Order was required to be passed in exercise of powers under rule 660 of the Rules. That is how all these matters are placed on board for orders. 4. Since no steps have been taken by the assessees in either of the matters as required under rules 657 and 658 of the Rules, we have no option but to return all these references unanswered in exercise of powers under rule 659 of the Rules. 7. In the result, all these references are returned unanswered and disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)