9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the O/o. Tribunal on 05.06.2018. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit of assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Shri Trilok Bansal, C.A. was authorised to appear before the Ld. CIT(A), but, neither informed the assessee about development of the case nor attended the appellate proceedings, therefore, appeal was decided ex-parte. He has further submitted that subsequently Shri Trilok Bansal, C.A. was immediately informed about the impugned order who assured to file appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time and he also regretted for his past conduct and therefore, again he was authorised to file the appeal before the ITAT, but, till date he did not inform any thing an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T [2019] 261 Taxman 496 (Bom.). 4. I have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that assessee received the impugned order dated 28.11.2016 on 15.12.2016. The Ld. CIT(A) passed the ex- parte Order in the absence of Counsel for Assessee and allowed the appeal of assessee partly. These facts, therefore, clearly show that Shri Trilok Bansal, C.A. did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) for prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, there was no reason for assessee to believe the same Counsel for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The entire facts have been manipulated and fabricated by assessee to put blame on Shri Trilok Bansal, C.A. for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal. It may be noted here that assessee has deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab & Haryana High Court has held observed that where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can only be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In this case delay for filing the appeal late for only a few days was not condoned. In the case of Asstt. CIT v. Taggas Industries Development Ltd. [2002] 80 ITD 21(Cal.), Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Calcutta, did not condone the delay for filing the appeal late by 13 days because the delay was not due to sufficient cause. Thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
