Court permits appeal after 987-day delay, frames key legal questions. Cost imposed.

The court allowed the condonation of a 987-day delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost of Rs.10,000. The appeal was permitted to proceed, with substantial questions of law framed for consideration during the appeal hearing, focusing on the dismissal of the M.A. on the ground of limitation and the validity of ITAT findings.

---

---

Issues involved:
Condonation of delay in filing memo of appeal due to late receipt of order copy, authority of advocate to accept service of order copy, applicability of Covid-related extension of limitation period, opposition to delay condonation by respondent, substantial questions of law for appeal.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appellant sought condonation of a 987-day delay in filing the memo of appeal due to the late receipt of the order copy. The appellant argued that the delay was not attributable to them as the order came to their notice only upon intimation of tax dues by the Income Tax Department. The appellant promptly obtained the certified copy of the order and filed the appeal within a reasonable time. They also relied on the Apex Court's order regarding the extension of limitation periods during the Covid period to support their argument that there was no delay in filing the appeal.

2. Authority of Advocate to Accept Service:
The appellant contended that their advocate was not authorized to receive the order copy on their behalf, thus justifying the delay in filing the appeal. However, the respondent argued that the advocate was duly authorized as per the power of attorney provided, allowing him to accept service of documents on behalf of the appellant. The court noted that the power of attorney conferred upon the advocate was sufficient authorization for receiving the order copy.

3. Opposition to Delay Condonation:
The respondent opposed the prayer for condonation of delay, citing the significant delay from the date of service of the order copy to the commencement of the lockdown period. The respondent argued that the delay was substantial and lacked a proper explanation, warranting rejection of the condonation request. The respondent emphasized the need for a valid explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.

4. Decision and Substantial Questions of Law:
After considering the submissions from both parties and the sequence of events, the court decided to condone the delay in the interest of justice. However, the court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 to be deposited within three weeks. The appeal was allowed to proceed, and the court framed substantial questions of law for consideration during the appeal hearing, focusing on the justification of dismissing the M.A. on the ground of limitation and the validity of the findings by the ITAT.

In conclusion, the court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, subject to the deposit of costs, and set forth substantial questions of law to be addressed during the appeal proceedings, ensuring a comprehensive review of the legal issues involved.

---