Delay Condoned for Appeal Filing Due to Work Interruptions: Bench Rules in Favor

The Revenue sought condonation of a three-day delay in filing an appeal, attributing it to interruptions in work. Respondents contested the delay timeline, arguing the appeal was time-barred. The Bench verified records and found the impugned order was received after the claimed date. Despite procedural errors, the delay was condoned, allowing the appeal. The cross objection was also resolved. The judgment was pronounced, settling the delay issues.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Contention regarding delay, Verification of submissions, Condonation of delay, Cross objection

Delay in filing appeal:
The Revenue filed an application for condonation of a three-day delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order was received on 24-12-2009, and the appeal should have been filed on 23-3-2010. The delay was attributed to interruptions in regular work due to ongoing electrical work and the shifting of records.

Contention regarding delay:
During the hearing, the respondents contested the submissions concerning the delay in the condonation of delay application. They argued that they had received the impugned order on 3-9-2009, not on 24-12-2009 as claimed by the Revenue. The respondents contended that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed as time-barred due to the delay.

Verification of submissions:
The Bench directed the learned Jt. CDR to submit relevant records to verify the submissions in the condonation of delay application. The records included the Outward Correspondence register and Tapal Book for the years 2009 & 2010 of the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) to authenticate the claims made in the application.

Condonation of delay:
Upon reviewing the records, it was found that the impugned order had not been received prior to 24-12-2009, as claimed by the Revenue. The Bench noted that there was no reason to doubt the averments made in the condonation of delay application. Despite the appellant-Commissioner signing the application instead of the authorized officer, the marginal delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the condonation of delay application was allowed.

Cross objection:
The cross objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of in light of the condonation of delay and verification of submissions. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 15-9-2010, resolving the issues related to the delay in filing the appeal and the cross objection.

---