9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder failing which the Appeal would stand dismissed. However, as the Notice of motion has been taken out belatedly on 21.1.2015 a condonation of a delay of 1845 days in taking out the Notice of motion is also sought. 2. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of motion points out that the order dated 7.11.2009 was passed on a Court working Saturday. At that time, the appellant was represented. However, it appears that due to miscommunication the appellant did not receive any communication from the Advocate intimating the conditional disposal of their Appeal. It is also submitted that the officer of the Department assigned to attend the Court did not attend the Court on Saturday as the office of the department was closed. Moreover, it is sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore this Court. 3. In view of the above, Mr.Vimal Gupta learned senior counsel for the Appellant prays that the delay be condoned and the Appeal be restored to file. It is submitted that the delay was on account of the mistake on the part of the appellants and not with any deliberate intent to gain any advantage at the cost of the assessee. 4. As against above, Mr.Thakkar learned counsel for the respondentassessee strongly objects to the condonation of delay. In particular he points out that at the very latest, the appellant should have been put on notice with regard to the appeal for Assessment year 2004-05 being dismissed when they filed Appeals for Assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 in July, 2012. This was for the reason that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence does not take place in the future and such callous attitude is not tolerated. 6. Be that as it may, Mr.Gupta the learned counsel for the Revenue emphasized that there was a genuine mistake on the the part of the revenue in not having kept them abreast with the developments after filing of the appeal. It is accepted that the mistake should not have happened. We do find that there was an unintentional lapse on the part of the revenue as the lapse could have been corrected much earlier when the appeal for A.Y.2001-02, 20030-04, 2005-06, 2006-07 was filed in 2012. In fact, there was no earthly reason for the revenue not to pursue the present appeal when on the same issue appeals are filed from subsequent order of the Tribunal to this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iour than an abstract philosophy, the unintentional lapse on the part of a litigant should not normally cause the doors of judicature permanently closed before him........." This we counterbalanced by the likely prejudice to the other side on account of condoning the delay. We are of the view that in view of revenue's mistake the delay of 1845 days in taking out the present motion be condoned and we also set aside the order dated 7.11.2009 and restore the Appeal to the file of this Court. However, a mistake on the part of the revenue would have been averted if appropriate care had been taken by them. Thus, the lack of care which led to a mistake of 1845 days cannot be without costs. Therefore, the delay is condoned subject to the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
