Application for Delay in Appeal Denied Due to Lack of Supporting Evidence and Proprietor's Health

The Tribunal denied the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal of 319 days by a proprietorship firm, citing the proprietor's health issues as the reason for the delay. Despite acknowledging the health issues detailed in the affidavit, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of supporting evidence, such as a medical certificate, and the absence of the proprietor's age in the submission. Drawing a distinction from a similar case, the Tribunal concluded that the circumstances did not warrant condoning the delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

In this case, the applicant filed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal of 319 days. The applicant, a proprietorship firm, claimed that the delay was due to the proprietor's severe health issues, which prevented him from attending to the affairs of the firm. The applicant submitted an affidavit detailing the health issues faced by the proprietor, including hospital admissions. The applicant's advocate cited a similar case from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court where a delay of 415 days was condoned due to the ill health of the person responsible for financial and tax matters. However, the Revenue's representative opposed the application, pointing out the lack of a medical certificate and the absence of the proprietor's age in the affidavit.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the reason given for the delay was the proprietor's health issues, as stated in the affidavit. The Tribunal acknowledged the absence of supporting evidence, such as a medical certificate, and noted that the age of the applicant, around ninety years, was not mentioned in the affidavit. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the one cited by the applicant's advocate, emphasizing that the facts and circumstances, including the age and medical evidence, were crucial in that case. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit to condone the delay in filing the appeal, leading to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay and the dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant.

---