Advani Oerlikon Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1455 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1455 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1455 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.724 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.724 OF 2007 Advani Oerlikon Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Sp.Range -1 Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondent WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1456 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1456 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1456 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.729 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.729 OF 2007 Advani Oerlikon Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Sp.Range -1 Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondent NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1457 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1457 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1457 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.726 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.726 OF 2007 Advani Oerlikon Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Sp.Range -1 Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondent WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1458 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1458 OF 2007 IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.727 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.727 OF 2007 Advani Oerlikon Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Sp.Range -1 Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondent WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1460 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1460 OF 2007 IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.728 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.728 OF 2007 Advani Oerlikon Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Sp.Range -1 Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondent WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1465 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1465 OF 2007IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.725 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.725 OF 2007 Advani Oerlikon Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Sp.Range -1 Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondent Mr.S.N.Inamdar with Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Appellants. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan with Mrs.P.P.Bhosale for Respondents. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 8th April, 2008 DATE : 8th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By these Notices of Motion, the Appellant is seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the respective Appeals. So far as the aforesaid Notices of Motion Nos.1455/2007, 1456/2007, 1457/2007, 1458/2007, 1460/2007 & 1465/2007 are concerned, there is delay of about 363 days, 1657 days, 1113 days, 1113 days, 1113 days & 363 days respectively in filing the respective Appeals. No sufficient causes are made out for condonation of delay. 2. Perusal of the Affidavits in support of the respective Notices of Motion show that the Appellant suddenly decided to file the Appeals when the Supreme Court overruled the decision of this Court in the case Phaltan Sugar Works Limited Phaltan Sugar Works Limited, in the case of S.A.BuildersV/s.CIT - 2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC). This cannot be a valid V/s.CIT - 2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC) ground for condonation of delay. As stated in the affidavits in support of the Notices of Motion, it appears that the Appellant had not challenged the Tribunals order and had accepted the decision of this Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Limited Phaltan Sugar Works Limited, and thereafter merely because the said decision was later overruled byS.A.Builders V/s.CIT -2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid Appeals came to be merely because the said decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders V/s.CIT - 2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC) filed belatedly. However, this cannot be a valid ground for condonation of delay. We are not at all satisfied V/s.CIT - 2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC) ground for condonation of delay. As stated in the affidavits in support of the Notices of Motion, it appears that the Appellant had not challenged the Tribunals order and had accepted the decision of this Court in Phaltan Sugar Works Limited Phaltan Sugar Works Limited, and thereafter merely because the said decision was later overruled byS.A.Builders V/s.CIT -2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC), the aforesaid Appeals came to be merely because the said decision was later overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders V/s.CIT - 2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC) filed belatedly. However, this cannot be a valid ground for condonation of delay. We are not at all satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay. Hence all the Notices of Motion stand dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the aforesaid Notices of Motion, the respective Income Tax Appeals also stand dismissed. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)