2017 (8) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mr.Tejveer Singh, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER P. C. 1 This Appeal pertains to the Assessment Years 2008-09. The present Appeal is filed against the Order dated 26th April 2017. 2 The learned counsel for the Appellant strenuously contended that the grounds which were raised by the present Appellant in the Application for condonation and the affidavit filed have not at all been considered .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed counsel for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal has considered the grounds raised by the present Appellant. Ignorance of law would not be an excuse for condonation of delay. According to the learned counsel, the approach of the Appellant is casual and such a casual approach cannot come within the meaning of expression 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal has rightly considered the same. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt would stand to gain by delay. It is trite that when the cause for substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause for substantial justice has to be sub-served. As it is found that the Appellant was not to gain by delay and for the reasons stated in the affidavit, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the Appellant and condone the delay. How .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X