City-22, Mumbai v. M/S.warkem

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4192 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2465 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax City-22, Mumbai )..Appellant Versus M/s.Warkem )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Deepak Taskwala for respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.REBELLO & Coram : F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 15.01.2008 PC 1. This is a Notice of Motion for condoning 385 days delay in filing of the appeal. On perusal of the affidavit in support, we find that the approval for filing appeal was granted by Chief CIT on 27.10.2005 and the same was received by CIT on 07.11.2005 but the draft appeal was received on 4.9.2006. In our view, period of 10 months for drafting the appeal is not reasonable. Cause shown is therefore, not sufficient cause. Hence, Notice of Motion dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE,J) (F.I.REBELLO,J) (R.S.MOHITE,J) (F.I.REBELLO,J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2465 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2465 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2465 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax City-22, Mumbai )..Appellant Versus M/s.Warkem )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.Deepak Taskwala for respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.REBELLO & Coram : F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 15.01.2008 PC 1. As the Notice of Motion dismissed, appeal also stands dismissed. Refund of court fees as per rules. Certified copy expedited. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)