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.
Tribunal dismisses appellant's delay appeal, citing received order evidence. The tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as evidence showed the appellant ...
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.
Tribunal dismisses appellant's delay appeal, citing received order evidence.
The tribunal dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as evidence showed the appellant received the order on 2.12.2017, contrary to their claim of learning about it in 2018. The tribunal found the appellant's explanation for the delay not genuine, attributing it to negligence, and subsequently dismissed the appeal in favor of the Revenue.
Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, receipt of order
Delay in filing appeal: The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 117-day delay in filing the appeal before the forum. The appellant claimed that they were unaware of the order-in-appeal dated 28.11.2017, dispatched by Speed Post on 30.11.2017, and only learned about it through a departmental letter dated 15.2.2018. They asserted that they requested a copy of the order on 4.4.2018, received it on 27.8.2018, and filed the appeal on 10.9.2018. The appellant alleged that their bank account was frozen for recovery during this period. The appellant submitted an affidavit supporting their version of events.
Condonation of delay: The Revenue, in response, presented evidence from the Postal Department indicating that the order was delivered to the appellant on 2.12.2017. The Revenue argued that the appellant's claim of not receiving the order until 27.8.2018 was false, citing the report of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. The Revenue contended that the appellant's explanation for the delay was not valid, attributing it to the appellant's negligence.
Receipt of order: After considering the submissions from both sides, the tribunal found in favor of the Revenue. The tribunal noted that the evidence provided by the Revenue established that the order was delivered to the appellant on 2.12.2017. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay and, subsequently, dismissed the appeal. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's explanation for the delay was not bona fide and was due to the appellant's negligence.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
