9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), rejecting the Appellant's prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation ?" 3. As the dispute is within a very narrow compass, the learned Counsel for the parties request that the appeal itself could be disposed of at the stage of admission. At the request of the learned Counsel, the appeal itself is taken up for consideration for final disposal. 4. Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are as under : (a) On 31st December, 2007, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 143(3) of the Act, relating to the subject assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the CIT(A). Therefore, on 12th May, 2011 the appellant requested the Assessing Officer to forward its appeal filed in its office to the CIT(A) to enable its disposal on merits. However, it was refused. This resulted in the appellant having to file a fresh appeal on 9th June, 2011 to the CIT(A) from the order of the Assessing Officer dated 31st December, 2007. This appeal was accompanied alongwith an application for condonation of delay listing out the aforesaid circumstances leading to the delay. (d) However, the CIT(A) by his order dated 4th August, 2011, rejected the appeal for condonation of delay and did not admit the appeal for consideration. (e) Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer ought to have immediately returned the appeal which was filed in the office of the Assessing Officer. This would have enabled the appellant to take appropriate steps and file the appeal with the office of the CIT(A). It is not the case of the Revenue that the appeal addressed to the CIT(A) was not filed with the Office of the Assessing Officer on 8th February, 2008 i.e. within the period of limitation. In case, the Assessing Officer had returned the appeal immediately to the appellant or had forwarded it to the office of the CIT(A) as would be expected of the State no delay would have taken place. This would have resulted in the appeal being considered on merits. Further, from the application made for stay on 19th August, 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the appellant has not been able to explain the delay between 23rd March, 2010 to 12th May, 2011 i.e. the period when it addressed a communication to the CIT(A) for hearing of its appeal till the date it requested the Assessing Officer to transfer the appeal to CIT(A). The explanation stated across the bar is that it was pursuing its appeal but no particulars are given. Therefore, although we set aside orders dated 4th September, 2013 of the Tribunal and 4th August, 2011 of the CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh disposal in accordance with law, it is subject to the appellant paying all tax dues payable for the subject Assessment Year, if not already paid and additionally on payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/by a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
