TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed due to delay in filing; Condonation application rejected for lack of evidence.</h1> The Tribunal rejected the appellants' Condonation of Delay application as they failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the 10-month and 14-day ... Condonation of Delay - delay of 10 months and 14 days in filing appeal – appellant submitted that the said order was shown to their previous Consultant, who was of the opinion that no appeal should be filed against the same. Accordingly, the appeal was not filed. It is only subsequently when the present Consultant guided the appellant that appeal should have been filed against the impugned order they accordingly filed the same – Held that:- action on the part of the appellant can not be a reasonable and justifiable ground for condoning the delay, delay is not condoned, the appeal filed by the appellant rejected as barred by limitation Issues: Condonation of Delay in filing appeal.Analysis:1. The appellants sought to decide the Condonation of Delay application based on written submissions. The delay in filing the appeal was 10 months and 14 days from the date of the impugned order. The appellants claimed that their previous Consultant advised against filing an appeal, leading to the delayed submission. The present Consultant later advised filing the appeal.2. The Revenue, represented by the S.D.R., opposed the condonation of delay, arguing that no justifiable reason existed for the delay. The Tribunal noted that the decision not to file the appeal was a conscious choice based on the previous Consultant's advice. The appellants failed to provide an affidavit or evidence from the Consultant to support their claim.3. The Tribunal found the appellants' change of opinion regarding filing the appeal insufficient to warrant condonation of the delay. Despite being directed to produce evidence from the previous Consultant, the appellants could not substantiate their claim. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application.4. Since the delay was not condoned, the appeal filed by the appellants was deemed barred by limitation and liable to be rejected. The Tribunal disposed of both the Condonation of Delay application and the appeal accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
