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.92 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.92 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.92 OF 2007 IN IN IN INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST TAX APPEAL (L) NO.10 OF 2006 TAX APPEAL (L) NO.10 OF 2006 TAX APPEAL (L) NO.10 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Apple Finance Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.J.D.Mistri with Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SANTOSH SANTOSH SANTOSH BORA BORA BORA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2008 : 21ST APRIL, 2008 : 21ST APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Notice of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of 353 days’ delay caused in filing the Appeal against the order dated 08/07/2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Perused the affidavit-in-support of the Notice of Motion. It appears that the Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval for filing an Appeal on 09/12/2005 however, the Appeal came to be filed belatedly on 07/12/2005 i.e. after a lapse of almost a year. 2. The reasons given for delay that of getting the draft memo of Appeal prepared and non-availability of Court fee stamps etc. does not appear to be justifiable. No sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. We are not satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay. Hence, Notice of Motion stands dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, Interest Tax Appeal (L) No.10 of 2006 also stands dismissed. (SANTOSH (SANTOSH (SANTOSH BORA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) BORA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) BORA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)