9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee to the application filed by the revenue seeking condonation of delay of 530 days in filing the above appeal. 3. The revision has been heard on the following question of law: "Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in condoning the delay of 530 days in filing the appeal of revenue before Tribunal contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. ?" 4. On specific query, learned counsel for the assessee states, the aforesaid appeal is pending before the Tribunal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the undisputed facts of the case are, the above appeal carries a delay of 530 days. The entire explan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ric facts, a litigant may never expect the Court to exercise its discretion to condone the delay. 9. Therefore, the nature of explanation remains ever relevant and primary for consideration of the Court. It must inspire confidence as to truthfulness and completeness as to the delay sought to be explained. Only then, the Court may act and condone the delay. Where however, as in the instant case, that explanation is found to be lacking in particulars and substance as also intent, the Court may never act on the same. The law in that regard is fairly well settled. The Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563, has held as below: "27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iderable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few." 10. Seen in that light, the explanation furnished by the revenue was neither bona fide nor it appears to be otherwise sufficient or such as may have been relied by the Tribunal to condone the delay of 530 days. 11. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. Question of law, framed above, is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
