9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2017 on the following substantial questions of law: 22. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay of 350 days in filling appeal before the Tribunal even though there was sufficient and bonafide cause for such delay has been explained by the appellant and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? 23. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer. The aforesaid request for rectification was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru on 07.02.2011. 4. The assessee thereafter filed another rectification application on 11.04.2011, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer on 16.09.2011. Thereafter the assessee filed an appeal against the order of rejection of application under Section 154 of the Act on 29.11.2012 along with a application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 3.09.2015 rejected the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, by order dated 23.02.2017 has also dismissed the appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the period of limitation" should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The decisive factor in condonation of delay is not the length of delay but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. The degree of leniency to be shown by a court depends on the nature of application and facts and circumstances of the case. [See:' Perumon Bhagavathy Devswom v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRS 2008 (8) SCC 321, 'Katari Suryanarayana vs. Kpoisetti Subba Rao and Ors AIR 2009 SC 2907, 'Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited', 2020[36] G.S.T.L. 305] 9. In the backdrop of the well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
