The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V v. Thermax Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3210 OF 2010IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (ST) NO. 725 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V Vs. Thermax Ltd. ..Applicant ..Respondent .... Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate I/b Shyam Walve for Applicant.Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah, Advocate for Respondent. .... CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.DATED : 21 AUGUST 2015 P.C.: This notice of motion has been taken out to restore the appeal which has been dismissed on 17 April 2007 under Rule 986of the High Court (Original Side) Rules and for that purpose themotion also seeks of condonation of delay of 1203 days in takingout this motion. 2.The affidavit in support of the notice of motion states that the reason for the delay was the change in the panel of advocatesS.S.DESHPANDE1 / 3 representing the revenue with effect from June 2008.Consequently, the deponent of the affidavit was not informed thatthe appeal was dismissed for non-removal of office objections.Further in support thereto, it is stated that there was lack ofcommunication with the then counsel appearing for the revenue. 3.The affidavit in support does not inspire confidence. Itstates the appeal was dismissed on 17 April 2007 while theadvocate representing the revenue in this case was removed fromthe panel in June 2008. Thus there is no explanation for the periodof more than 1 Year and 2 Months from the date of the dismissal ofthe appeal and removal of the advocate. It does not state the dateon which the deponent of the affidavit came to know of the order ofthis Court dated 17 April 2007 dismissing it's appeal. The aforesaiddate would be the primary date around which would revolve theapplication for condonation of delay and consideration of thereasons for the delay. Besides no particulars have been listed out inthe affidavit to point out, what efforts were made, if any, to be intouch with their counsel appearing in respect of the appeal and theresult of their attempts at contacting the advocate.S.S.DESHPANDE2 / 3 4.In view of the above, we find that the explanation offeredfor the delay is without any basis particularly because the date ofcoming to know of the dismissal of the appeal is not stated in theaffidavit. The manner in which the affidavit in support has beenfiled display a casual approach. 5.In the above circumstances, we find that the reasons setout for the delay in the affidavit in support are not satisfactory.Accordingly, the notice of motion as filed by the revenue isdismissed. [G.S. KULKARNI, J] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]