1 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 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.4226 OF 2006 MOTION NO.4226 OF 2006 MOTION NO.4226 OF 2006 inin in INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX TAX TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2154 of 2006 APPEAL (L) NO.2154 of 2006 APPEAL (L) NO.2154 of 2006 The The The Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner of Income Tax of Income Tax of Income Tax City City City 17 Mumbai 17 Mumbai 17 Mumbai ...... Appellant vs vs vs Shri Shri Shri Balwant Mehtalia .. Balwant Mehtalia .. Balwant Mehtalia .. Respondent Respondent Respondent Mr.R.Asokan Mr.R.Asokan Mr.R.Asokan for for for Appellant Appellant Appellant Mr.M.Subramaniam Mr.M.Subramaniam Mr.M.Subramaniam with with with Mr.V.S.Hedade for Respondent Mr.V.S.Hedade for Respondent Mr.V.S.Hedade for Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND F.I.REBELLO AND R.S.MOHITE, R.S.MOHITE, R.S.MOHITE, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 : 4TH DECEMBER, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1.1.1. There is a delay of 279 days in preferring the There is a delay of 279 days in preferring the There is a delay of 279 days in preferring the appeal. appeal. appeal. Mr.K.K.Rath has filed an affidavit in Mr.K.K.Rath has filed an affidavit in Mr.K.K.Rath has filed an affidavit in support support support of the motion. Learned counsel for the of the motion. Learned counsel for the of the motion. Learned counsel for the respondent respondent respondent pionts pionts pionts out that the cause shown would no out that the cause shown would no out that the cause shown would no amount amount amount to sufficient cause and consequently the to sufficient cause and consequently the to sufficient cause and consequently the delay delay delay should not be condoned. should not be condoned. should not be condoned. 2.2.2. We have considered para 4 of the affidavit We have considered para 4 of the affidavit We have considered para 4 of the affidavit showing showing showing the cause. We find that no explanation the cause. We find that no explanation the cause. We find that no explanation whatsoever whatsoever whatsoever has been given for the delay from has been given for the delay from has been given for the delay from 22.3.2006 22.3.2006 22.3.2006 and and and 22.8.2006. In our view, as the cause 22.8.2006. In our view, as the cause 22.8.2006. In our view, as the cause would would would not amount to sufficient cause, Motion is not amount to sufficient cause, Motion is not amount to sufficient cause, Motion is dismissed. dismissed. dismissed. (F.I.Rebello, (F.I.Rebello, (F.I.Rebello, J) J) J) (R.S.Mohite, (R.S.Mohite, (R.S.Mohite, J) J) J) 2