9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artered Accountant for the appellant and Shri Anand Narayan, learned authorized representative for the revenue and perused the records. This appeal has filed this Tribunal on 19.02.2024 along with an application seeking condonation of delay No. 50224/2024. In this application the appellant wrote 16 paragraphs on merits of the case and had the following as the ground for seeking condonation of delay : "Since the appellant is not much educated and had no idea about the case and due to the dispute with the consultant, she did not come to know about the order. Later when she received a call for recovery, she came to know about the order being issued. Later she took an advice from a consultant who advised her to file an appeal. After which she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongly mentioned as 30.09.2024). It is claimed by the appellant that the appeal was dispatched by speed post on 16.02.2024 although it was received in the registry on 19.02.2024. The applicant wants the date on which it had sent the application by speed post to be reckoned as the date of filing the appeal and the delay of 149 days to be condoned. 6. Along with this application, the appellant attached two affidavits - one by the appellant Ms. Aneeta Patel and another by one Shri Akshay Jain, Chartered Accountant. In her affidavit Ms. Aneeta Patel claimed that the impugned order was received by Shri Subhash Jain, but she was unaware of the order and only when the department initiated recovery proceedings on 06.10.2023, she came to know about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kshay Jain who had not even represented the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals), the acknowledgement was given by the appellant herself and the order was collected by some of their staff and was kept in his custody. There is no reference to Shri Akshay Jain in the impugned order or in the acknowledgement. 8. We now proceed to examine the grounds for condonation of delay in the new application No. 50024/2025. These are as follows :- (i) The appellant is not much educated and hence he was not aware of the law. We do not find this reason convincing because the appellant had received the order of the Assistant Commissioner and pursued her legal remedy by filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and had also indicated Shri Subhash C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the impugned order, Shri Subhash Jain (not Shri Akshay Jain) had represented the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). According to the affidavit filed by the appellant also the order was received by Shri Subhash Jain. According to the other affidavit filed by Shri Akshay Jain, he (not Shri Subhash Jain) had received the order through some of his staff. Clearly, none of the submissions add up. The only document on record is an acknowledgement by the appellant of receiving the impugned order. It does not matter whether she had received it directly or through somebody representing her. Therefore, the submission that the order was delivered late to the appellant is without any force. (iv) Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
