TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l when on the same issue appeals are filed from subsequent order of the Tribunal to this Court and the same are pending. We would expect the revenue to be more cautious henceforth and ensure that matters are properly attended to and proper followup is done with regard to the orders passed by this Court. It 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the office of the department was closed. Moreover, it is submitted the appellant also did not find the conditional order dated 7.11.2009 loaded on the website of this Court all of which cumulatively led the Appellant to believe that its Appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 was still pending in this Court awaiting its admission. Mr.Vimal Gupta the learned senior counsel for the revenue states that for Assessment years 2001-02, 2003-04, 2005-06 and 2006-07 a common order dated 22.2.2012 was passed by the Tribunal allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the department's appeal by following the order passed by the Tribunal in Assessment year 2004005 (subject matter of the present appeal). The Appellant filed appeals for Assessment years 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 in July, 2012. This was for the reason that the common order of the Tribunal for the above assessment years specifically follows the order of the Tribunal for Assessment year 2004-05. Mr.Thakkar states that contention of the appellant smacks of gross negligence as no necessary inquiries were made about the facts of the present appeal at that time. It is also submitted by him that grave prejudice would be caused to the respondentasseseee as in case the appeal is finally allowed by the Court the respondentassessee would be saddled with costs on account of interest on delayed payment of tax. He has taken us through the affidavitinreply filed to oppose the notice of motion. 5. We find that the conduct of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue appeals are filed from subsequent order of the Tribunal to this Court and the same are pending. We would expect the revenue to be more cautious henceforth and ensure that matters are properly attended to and proper followup is done with regard to the orders passed by this Court. 7. However, before condoning the delay one would have to consider whether the condonation of delay would cause gross prejudice to the other side only on the above account. It is contended by the Revenue assessee that it would be saddled with costs on account of interest if the revenue succeeds in appeal. We find that even if the revenue had removed the objections within the prescribed period as provided in the order dated 7.11.2009 and the appeals were admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
