9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent:- Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate. JUDGMENT ON BOARD SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J 1.The present appeal preferred by the appellant/ assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was admitted for hearing on 08.11.2024 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided to support the dealy of 597 days in filing the appeal. It is the order of the ITAT against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/assessee. 3. Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, would submit that learned ITAT while passing the impugned order has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the matter of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal v. The In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly, there is a delay of 597 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT and for which the appellant/assessee has assigned the reason that the communication of the order was made on an e-mail of which the appellant was not an active user and even the authorized representative of the assessee did not amend the e-mail id on which the order was to be communicated and, therefore, the order could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccurred in filing the appeal deserves to be and is hereby condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant to the High Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant is also directed to file proof thereof within 15 days from today. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. The matter is remitted back to the ITAT for deciding the appeal on merits, in accordan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
