TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n application, and, as there was no office objection found out, the petitioner had not filed any delay of condonation application. “This type of convenient” argument is not accepted by this Court, because the petitioner is a company limited and is not an illiterate ignorant person. Always petitioner is arguing the case with the help of the lawyers. Even otherwise also ignorentia juris non excusate. Thus, ignorance of law is not excuse. The petitioner cannot say that there ought to have been office defect pointed out by the office of Commissioner (Appeals), otherwise the petitioner will never file delay of condonation application. Every body should know the law and should have filed the delay of condonation application, if there is only dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity to file delay of condonation application was given by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the petitioner. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Commissioner (Appeals), while dismissing the appeal preferred by this petitioner vide its order dated 13.08.2012. 3. Counsel for the Union of India submitted that the petitioner is not a poor illiterate person, rather it is a company limited, and all the knowledge is being injected by the efficient lawyer, and, therefore, it is out of place to say that Commissioner (Appeals) should have pointed out to this petitioner that the petitioner must file delay of condonation application. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, the appeal was dismissed. Thus, no error has been committed by the Commissioner(Appeals) as per Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) Reasons cannot be presumed by the Commissioner (Appeals), much less reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. There ought to be an application for condonation of delay and thereafter the reasons can be appreciated by the concerned authority. (iii) The contention raised by the petitioner that the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) should have pointed an office objection or defect in filing appeal, that the appeal is filed without any delay of condonation application, and, as there was no office objection found out, the petitioner had not filed any delay of condonation application. This t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
