Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
ITAT Indore allows appeals citing inadvertent delays, grants opportunity for evidence, emphasizes natural justice The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore allowed three appeals by different assessees challenging impugned orders due to a delay of 48 days in filing the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore allowed three appeals by different assessees challenging impugned orders due to a delay of 48 days in filing the appeals under section 249(2) of the Act. The Tribunal, considering the cause presented for the delay, condoned the delay citing inadvertent mistakes by the counsel's office. The first appellate authority was directed to hear the appeals on merit, granting the assessees an opportunity to present evidence. The appeals were allowed in part for statistical purposes only, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.
Issues involved: Appeal against impugned orders due to delay in filing appeals u/s 249(2) of the Act.
Summary: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore involved three appeals by different assessees challenging impugned orders due to a delay of 48 days in filing the appeals. The crux of the arguments revolved around the condonation of the delay, with the assessees contending that the delay was due to the mistake of the counsel and should not result in penalization, while the ld. CIT(DR) argued against condoning the delay.
Upon considering the submissions and perusing the record, it was noted that the assessment orders were passed on a specific date, and the assessees were required to file the appeals within the prescribed time u/s 249(2) of the Act. However, u/s 249(3), the first appellate authority could admit the appeal after the prescribed period if satisfied with the cause presented by the assessee for the delay. The impugned orders revealed that petitions for condonation of delay were filed, citing inadvertent mistakes by the counsel's office, supported by an affidavit and judicial pronouncements.
The first appellate authority expressed skepticism regarding the claim of inadvertence by the counsel's office, but the Tribunal, upholding the principle of natural justice, decided to condone the delay. The direction was given to the first appellate authority to hear the appeals on merit and allow the assessees an opportunity to present evidence to support their claims. The appeals were allowed in part for statistical purposes only.
The judgment was pronounced in the open court in the presence of representatives from both sides on 17th July 2012.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
