9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.J. (ORAL) Since both the revisions pertain to the very same assessee but for different years, they are taken up for consideration together. 2. Heard Shri S.K. Posti, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Suyash Pant, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent. 3. CTR No.12 of 2020 pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal has been filed. The tribunal did not find it to constitute sufficient cause, and hence dismissed both the appeals. Hence these revisions. 5. The learned brief holder appearing for the State submits that the delay has not been properly explained; that sufficient cause has not been shown; hence no interference is called for. 6. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee-company constitutes sufficient cause. 8. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in a catena of judgments that the delay should not come in the way of doing substantial justice between the parties. 9. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the delay occasioned is so huge as to disentitle the assessee for any relief. 10. For all these reasons, the impugned order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
