1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appeals Dismissed for Delay Despite Personal Issues</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as time-barred, rejecting the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals due to reasons such as ... Condonation of delay - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 10.09.2013 was received on 05.11.2013 as confirmed by the applicants themselves. From the date of receipt of the order the last date of filing of appeal was 04.02.2014. After the delay of more than 405 days they have filed the appeal on 17.03.2015. We find that once the order has been received by the appellant on 05.11.2013, they are aware of the consequences and remedies available. We also find that the impugned order is denovo order when the this Tribunal vide order dated 06.06.2012 remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, there was no justification for delay of 405 days. The applicants justification of dislocation of residence after the receipt of the order and other personal reasons are not valid grounds for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable reason to condone the delay of 405 days. Accordingly, COD applications are rejected. Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed as time barred. Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to dislocation of residence and personal reasons.Analysis:1. The applicants filed applications for condonation of a 405-day delay in preferring the appeals. The advocate representing the applicants argued that they received the Commissioner (Appeals) Order late and faced challenges due to dislocation from their residence and the sudden demise of the Director's mother.2. The Ld. AR representing the respondent contended that the applicants had received the order on time and cited a relevant case law to support their argument.3. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) order was received on 05.11.2013, and the last date for filing the appeal was 04.02.2014. Despite this timeline, the appeal was filed on 17.03.2015, causing a delay of over 405 days. The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants were aware of the order's receipt date and the available remedies. Additionally, the impugned order was a denovo order following a Tribunal remand to the Commissioner (Appeals).4. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason to condone the 405-day delay. It ruled that reasons such as dislocation of residence and personal issues were not valid grounds for the delay. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were rejected, and both appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
