9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Delay in filing appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1970-71.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment year 1970-71, who refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee explained that the delay occurred due to a communication error regarding the date of service of the order, demand notice, and challan. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the assessee, leading to the refusal to condone the delay. 2. The assessee's representative argued that the delay should be condoned as there was a bonafide impression regarding the due date of service. The representative cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the liberal construction of the term "sufficient cause" when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the appellant. The departmental representative contended that the delay was not adequately explained and relied on a Supreme Court judgment requiring a proper and satisfactory explanation for delays in filing appeals. 3. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including a letter from the assessee to the counsel at Kanpur, which clarified the date of service of the demand notice. The Tribunal noted that the letter established a bonafide impression regarding the due date of filing the appeal. Citing previous court decisions, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance justice when no negligence is involved. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay of four days and directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter on merits, restoring the appeal for further consideration. 4. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal was based on the bonafide impression held by the assessee regarding the due date of service, supported by the letter provided as evidence. By applying the principle of advancing justice through a liberal construction of "sufficient cause," the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was justified. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay and restore the appeal for consideration on merits signifies the importance of interpreting legal provisions to ensure fairness and avoid penalizing parties for genuine misunderstandings or communication errors.
|
